"If I had asked people what they had wanted, they would have said faster horses”. So goes the (supposed) saying of Henry Ford when reflecting on his impact in revolutionising the car industry.
Whilst the Government’s recent announcement of its AI tool ‘Extract’ may not go down in history with quite the same level of impact as the automation of car production lines, it is nonetheless interesting that many commentators in responding to Extract have been quick to claim that the Government would have been better putting its resources into the recruitment of local authority planners. I disagree.
Before I risk being slung out of the RTPI for crimes against planners, let me put forward the case for the defence. If Extract does what the PM promises, councils will be able to “convert decades-old, handwritten planning documents and maps into data in minutes”, “power new types of planning software to slash 250,000 estimated hours spent by planning officers each year manually checking these documents”, and “will dramatically reduce delays that have long plagued the system”. To my mind, that feels like a win-win for our beleaguered local authorities.
Whilst it’s safe territory to claim on social media platforms that the answer to improving planning performance is more planners and better pay, that only touches on part of the problem. Job satisfaction and the sense of making a difference have a huge part to play as well. If you have spent years gaining your academic and professional qualifications, undertaking time consuming administrative and processing tasks is unlikely to become any more interesting because the rate of pay has increased. Extract presents an opportunity to dramatically improve the working conditions of planners, allowing them to spend greater time on higher value work. More efficient, effective output will in practice increase the importance of planners, boost the coffers of local authorities through resultant development and the generation of business rates and council tax, and justify better pay and conditions for officers in return.
I also believe that this Government is correct in doubling down on its growth strategy, and seeking the intervention of technology to make good on its manifesto pledges to the country – and it clearly needs to get on with it. If it waits for local authorities to generate enough money to employ more planners, I’ll be retired, and so will the opportunity have passed, and there isn’t any spare cash at HM Treasury for the Government to fund a recruitment drive. The US may be a little distracted at present, but we are in a race with other European nations to attract inward investment, to gain commercial advantages in green energy resilience, life science, and other growth industries and so we need a more efficient, quicker planning system. Immigration is seemingly a political non-starter and we don’t make enough of our own planners (never mind associated disciplines that are also engaged in the determination of a planning application or preparation of a local plan) to meet the demands of industry. If we fail to harness the opportunities presented by AI we will be playing into the hands of our European neighbours who have less complex and cheaper ways of processing proposals for development than we do.
Change rarely arrives in the perfect package, and AI tools like Extract will no doubt face teething problems. But the planning system doesn’t have the luxury of standing still. If we want to remain globally competitive, deliver the homes and infrastructure we need, and make planning a profession that attracts and retains top talent, then we must embrace innovation wherever it comes from. Faster horses might feel safer, but it’s time we backed the engine.