Strategic planning can begin as a deliberative and inclusive process of plan making, but then transition into a decisive and exclusive process of investment and priority setting at the stage of implementation. Citizens who once participated in the formal plan making process through government-designed engagement events fade into the background in this critical latter part of strategic planning. At this point they must invent avenues to influence investment priorities. In the context of bicycle infrastructure planning and delivery in Sydney, Australia this paper examines how strategic plans that embrace cycling as an important transport mode translate into decisions to commit to some projects over others. The paper explores four ways community groups seek traction in a highly contentious and transitional space of planning through a process we call ‘guerrilla governance’. Evoking aspects of advocacy and insurgent planning, guerrilla governance broadens how the term ‘governance’ is used within urban planning scholarship, by incorporating such ‘legitimised’ agitation from beyond government.
AbramS A, 2000, “Planning the public: Some comments on empirical problems for planning theory”Journal of Planning Education and Research19351–357
2.
AlbrechtsL, 2004, “Strategic (spatial) planning reexamined”Environment and Planning B: Planning and Design31743–758
3.
AlbrechtsL, 2013, “Reframing strategic spatial planning by using a coproduction perspective”Planning Theory1246–63
4.
AllmendingerPHaughtonG, 2012, “Post-political spatial planning in England: A crisis of consensus?”Transactions of the Institute of British Geographers, New Series3789–103
5.
AllmendingerPHaughtonG, 2013, “The evolution and trajectories of English spatial governance: ‘neoliberal’ episodes in planning”Planning Practice and Research286–26
6.
BeardV A, 2003, “Learning radical planning: The power of collective action”Planning Theory213–35
7.
BenvenisteG, 1989Mastering the Politics of Planning: Crafting Credible Plans and Policies that Make a Difference (Jossey-Bass, San Francisco, CA)
BrownillSParkerG, 2010, “Why bother with good works? The relevance of public participation(s) in planning in a post-collaborative era”Planning, Practice and Research25275–282
10.
BunkerR, 2012, “Reviewing the path dependency in Australian metropolitan planning”Urban Policy and Research30443–452
11.
CurtisC, 2008, “Planning for sustainable accessibility: The implementation challenge”Transport Policy15104–112
12.
DavidoffP, 1965, “Advocacy and pluralism in planning”Journal of the American Institute of Planners31331–338
13.
DodsonJ, 2009, “The ‘infrastructure turn’ in Australian metropolitan spatial planning”International Planning Studies14109–123
14.
FallethE IHanssenG SSaglieI L, 2010, “Challenges to democracy in market-oriented urban planning in Norway”European Planning Studies18737–753
GleesonBLowN, 2000Australian Urban Planning: New Challenges, New Agendas (Allen and Unwin, Sydney)
20.
GrovesCMundayMYakovlevaN, 2013, “Fighting the pipe: Neoliberal governance and barriers to effective community participation in energy infrastructure planning”Environment and Planning C: Government and Policy31340–356
21.
GualiniE, 2010, “Governance, space and politics: Exploring the governmentality of planning”, in The Ashgate Research Companion to Planning Theory: Conceptual Challenges for Spatial Planning Eds HillierJHealeyP, (Ashgate, Farnham, Surrey) pp 57–86
22.
HealeyP, 2006Collaborative Planning: Shaping Places in Fragmented Societies (Palgrave Macmillan, New York)
23.
HealeyP, 2007a, “The new institutionalism and the transformative goals of planning”, in Institutions and Planning: Current Research in Urban and Regional Studies Ed. VermaN, (Elsevier, Amsterdam) pp 61–87
24.
HealeyP, 2007bUrban Complexity and Spatial Strategies: Towards a Relational Planning for Our Times (Routledge, London)
25.
HealeyP, 2011, “City regions and place development”, in The Futures of the City Region Eds NeumanMHullA, (Routledge, London) pp 43–55
26.
HealeyP, 2012, “Re-enchanting democracy as a mode of governance”Critical Policy Studies619–39
27.
HealeyP, 2013, “Comment on Albrechts and Balducci ‘Practicing strategic planning’”disP-The Planning Review4948–50
28.
HeldD, 1987Models of Democracy (Stanford University Press, Stanford, CA)
29.
HendriksC M, 2006, “When the forum meets interest politics: Strategic uses of public deliberation”Politics and Society34571–602
30.
HirstP Q, 1990Representative Democracy and Its Limits (Polity, Cambridge)
31.
InchA, 2012, “Creating ‘a generation of NIMBYs’? Interpreting the role of the state in managing the politics of urban development”Environment and Planning C: Government and Policy30520–535
32.
InnesJ EBooherD E, 2010Planning with Complexity: An Introduction to Collaborative Rationality for Public Policy (Routledge, New York)
33.
LegacyCMarchAMouatC M, 2014, “Limits and potentials to deliberative engagement in highly regulated planning systems: Norm development within fixed rules”Planning Theory and Practice1526–40
34.
MäntysaloRSaglieI-LCarsG, 2011, “Between input legitimacy and output efficiency: Defensive routines and agonistic reflectivity in Nordic land-use planning”European Planning Studies192109–2126
35.
MarchA, 2012The Democratic Plan: Analysis and Diagnosis (Ashgate, Farnham, Surrey)
MiraftabF, 2009, “Insurgent planning: Situating radical planning in the global south”Planning Theory832–50
39.
MouatCLegacyCMarchA, 2013, “The problem is the solution: Testing agonistic theory's potential to recast intractable planning disputes”Urban Policy and Research31150–166
40.
MouffeC, 1999, “Deliberative democracy or agonistic pluralism?”Social Research66745–758
41.
NeedlemanM LNeedlemanC E, 1974Guerrillas in the Bureaucracy: The Community Planning Experiment in the United States (John Wiley, New York)
PurcellM, 2009, “Resisting neoliberalization: Communicative planning or counter-hegemonic movements?”Planning Theory8140–165
55.
RumingKGurranN, 2014, “Australian planning system reform”Australian Planner51102–107
56.
SagerT, 2010, “Role conflict: Planners torn between dialogical ideals and neo-liberal realities”, in The Ashgate Research Companion to Planning Theory: Conceptual Challenges for Spatial Planning Eds HillierJHealeyP, (Ashgate, Farnham, Surrey) pp 183–214
57.
SørensenETorfingJ, 2007, “Introduction. Governance network research: Towards a second generation”, in Theories of Democratic Network Governance Eds SørensenETorfingJ, (Palgrave Macmillan, Basingstoke, Hants) pp 1–21
58.
SwyngedouwE, 2007, “Impossible sustainability and the post-political condition”, in The Sustainable Development Paradox: Urban Political Economy in the United States and Europe Eds KruegerRGibbsD, (Guilford Press, New York) pp 13–40
59.
ThompsonN K, 2012, “Participatory budgeting—the Australian way”Journal of Public Deliberation8(2) article 5
60.
Van den BroeckJ, 2013, “Balancing strategic and institutional planning: The search for a pro-active planning instrument”disP-The Planning Review4943–47
61.
WamplerB, 2010Participatory Budgeting in Brazil: Contestation, Cooperation, and Accountability (Pennsylvania State University Press, University Park, PA)
62.
YatesD, 1977The Ungovernable City: The Politics of Urban Problems and Policy Making (MIT Press, Cambridge, MA)
