Introduction There is increasing discourse in the planning discipline with regards to the democratic deficit, a term used to describe the conceptual cleft existing between the state (or other regulatory decisionmaking bodies) and civil society. Interest in the democratic deficit has heightened as governance structures have not managed to ensure widespread social equity. The planning discipline, as a governance form, is presumably geared to supporting the interests of people and places. Therefore, there is mounting conjecture that policy construction must be malleable, meaning it must be made more responsive to the citizens for whom, and places for which, it is intended to serve. This necessarily implies that planning systems require restructuring.