This paper aims at identifying methods and tools suitable for incorporating the public’s perceptions of their everyday landscapes in to the planning process. This is undertaken primarily through a literature study to ascertain participatory methods appropriate for such a task; and further weighing these methods against criteria derived from theories and practices associated with public participation. We will further highlight the necessity for this knowledge to be part of any meaningful landscape assessment if truly democratic planning of the limited landscape resources is to be achieved across urban regions. Landscape can be considered an integrating, holistic concept, which can help bring diverse disciplines to a common arena where shared problems can be realised and conflicting issues addressed. Landscape is more than just a physical entity, more than just an area of land, the actual perception of landscape being as relevant as its physicality. This should be taken in to account when assessing or evaluating a landscape. The consideration of the people whose values and perceptions are tied to the landscape, need to be seen as central to any debate concerning future land use. The implications of this are significant in urban regions, where there is increasing competition for land from the different users. Landscape is a construct of present day society, catering for the needs and desires of the moment, thus its development is a process of constant change. It is these changes which have created the cultural landscapes which society values today. Yet the rate and extent of change is significantly affected by global influences which have at the same time moved the focus of governance from local actors to major global players. These changes can be difficult for local inhabitants to comprehend and accept. Change to the landscape has been parallel with increased realisation of change within the political and economic order through the later half of the century 20th as western populations have been seen to become increasingly disillusioned with the traditional, aggregated model of democracy. This has in turn influenced planning theory and practice. The recognition of the potential for tension and conflict between individuals and groups, heightened by cultural diversity through coexistence within complex social and economic networks, has moved focus towards practices which can alleviate conflicts. This has resulted in change in impetus from traditional technocratic practices towards the realisation of more inclusive and participatory processes, reassessing the meaning of democracy within the planning system. This realisation is mirrored within the European Landscape Convention (ELC) where the need for raised awareness of landscape among the civil society and the establishment of procedures for participation of the public within landscape policies is at the forefront. The need for tools to mitigate conflicts within the landscape is heightened by the development of increasingly multifunctional landscapes in expanding urban regions. This reintroduces multiple meanings and values which heighten the potential for conflict as an increased number of users with varied uses compete for increasingly limited landscapes resources. At present most landscape assessments tend to be technocratic, outsider appraisals, where “experts” act as unreliable judges of what people care about in the landscape which miss the insider or public perceptions. It is widely realised that for successful participation within planning, inclusion should be instigated as early as possible in the process. This points to the need for the involvement of stakeholders at the stage of assessment or analysis prior to planning, where the diversity of interests, values and knowledge can be voiced. To truly address the multifaceted nature of landscape the multiple perceptions attached to it must be addressed. To consider these insider views requires a change of democratic practices within planning, where as some form of general consensus is commonly considered desirable, at the assessment stage it is perhaps deeper understanding rather than accordance which is most suited.