In recent decades, the dominant planning discourse has undergone a great change from a previous top-down approach towards collaborative and communicative planning. Instead of merely planning for the people in a technocratic and positivist approach, planners are increasingly expected to pay attention to the voices of the citizens. However, within this new participatory approach there is a growing post-colonial and feminist critique pointing out that not all voices are being heard. This critique sheds light on inherent power relations within the collaborative and communicative planning discourse. In particular, the voices of women in marginalised neighbourhoods are often neglected (Sandercock Towards cosmopolis. Planning for multicultural cities. ). Participatory planning in marginalised housing areas demands both a great sensibility to citizens' everyday life worlds, and a more reflexive planner role. However, the complexities of the planner's praxis and uncertainties in the planner's roles become an obstacle to develop a more inclusive participatory approach. Difficulties of reaching out to the whole community is often recognised, but seldom fully dealt with, neither in theory, nor in practice.Keywords Gender Á Participatory planning Á Planner's role Á Women This article presents experiences from an underprivileged neighbourhood, Rosengård, in Malmö, Sweden, illustrating the complex relationships between the local planners and civil servants on the one hand, and the women in the neighbourhood on the other. Through in-depth interviews with planners and civil servants on municipal and neighbourhood level intricate power relations are being revealed which relate to planning ideals on the one hand, and to planning practice on the other. It demonstrates the difficulties of professional practice and the different roles of the planner, using a theoretical framework that draws on feminist and postcolonial planning critique. Of specific relevance for the topic of this article is a critique of inherent imperialism within the communicative planning approach, including the goals of consensus and the ideal speech situation, the role of the planner, and the gendered dimensions of planning. My argument is that participatory planning is highly complex both as a theoretical and practical exercise. Planning is a political tool and as such must be used consciously. If the planners have poor knowledge about, or are prejudiced towards, the people they plan for, the result of the planning