Town, social and community planning are among a broad suite of planning pathways widely understood as aiming to ensure development and associated social change is in the interest of the ‘public good’. While there are convergences in these planning approaches, they also diverge in multiple ways, including in understandings of who legitimate players are, and how planning gives voice to the knowledge and interests of such players. In this paper, we map the similarities and differences of these planning approaches in the Australian context, considering the philosophical and praxis underpinnings of each. While divergence in the knowledge, mandate and institutional legitimacy of each approach is highlighted, the extent to which they are unified in a commitment to people and ecology is also considered. Given the constraints imposed by neoliberal ideology, this paper argues there is some urgency to reposition planning approaches. We argue that converging foundational interests need to be considered and attention paid to the energetic community-based coalitions that are forming to empower communities in planning. This will ensure the continued relevance of all three planning approaches in the creation of a fair and environmentally responsible Australia – historically core mandates for all planning praxis.