Storytelling is regarded as an important practice within planning processes. Seminal contributions (Throgmorton, 1992, Journal of Planning Education and Research, 12, pp. 17–31; Flyvbjerg, 1998, Rationality and Power: Democracy in Practice, Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press) as well as recent research (Jensen, 2007, Planning Theory, 6, pp. 211–236; van Hulst, 2012, Planning Theory, 11, pp. 299–318) demonstrate that there are multiple competing stories about the meaning of any specific plan. This paper contributes to this debate by considering stories as building blocks for a collective action frame in the form of a mutual story. Political executives engage in a framing contest in order to influence such a mutual story. Our case study is based on interpretative analysis of contrasting narratives ands shows how political executives negotiate the meaning of a plan in such a way that the chances of its implementation through funding are optimized.