Planning has become a convenient scapegoat.
Scroll through social media, sit in on a contentious public meeting, or read the comments under a headlining planning story and you’ll see it: planners cast as villains, faceless bureaucrats, obstacles to progress. Abuse, harassment and misinformation are no longer fringe features of the profession. For many planners and other professions, they are becoming routine.
This should worry all of us – not just those working in the planning profession.
Planning is one of the most visible expressions of democracy in everyday life. It’s where national ambition meets local reality. Where competing interests often collide. Where decisions are made, in public, about the places we live, work and care about most. When that process becomes toxic, it’s a sign that something deeper is wrong.
Evidence suggests the problem is growing. Research by the Royal Town Planning Institute has shown alarming levels of abuse faced by planners, particularly those working in local government. Much of it plays out online, amplified by misinformation and polarised debate. But some planners report intimidation in person, and a steady rise in complaints that feel less about accountability and more about pressure.
This isn’t “robust debate”. It’s corrosive. We can disagree in an agreeable way. We can all take a moment to consider how we would like to be treated if we were in the other person's role and place or if it was a relative or friend.
Free speech is essential in a democracy. But free speech without responsibility and listening isn’t engagement – it’s just noise. Criticism untethered from facts doesn’t strengthen decision‑making; it undermines it. When expertise is dismissed outright, when professionals are targeted simply for undertaking their professional role in the overall public interest, trust in democratic systems begins to erode.
Planning doesn’t – and shouldn’t – claim to have all the answers. It exists precisely because there are balancing considerations to navigate: such as, homes and environment, growth and infrastructure, local concerns and national need. At its best, planning is collaborative, evidence‑led and accountable. But it can only work if there is respect across the divide – between communities, elected representatives, professionals and developers alike.
Too often, that respect feels in short supply.
Part of the problem is how planning is portrayed. It’s frequently reduced to a remote, bureaucratic process, something done to communities rather than with them. That narrative is not just inaccurate – it’s dangerous. It fuels disengagement, deepens mistrust and makes constructive dialogue harder.
The truth is more complicated, and more hopeful. Planning, at its best, is creative and collective. It improves lives, protects and enhances the environment and helps places adapt to change. It is one of the few tools we have that is explicitly designed to balance individual interests with the wider public good.
If we want healthier debate, and truly plan across the divide, we need to be the change that we advocate for. Engaging meaningfully early, build trust and understanding and ultimately tell that story better – and hear it more often.
That’s why the RTPI has been working to challenge misinformation, humanise and value the profession and essential value of planning and encourage more meaningful engagement in planning at all scales and stages. It is also why, during my year as President, I’m supporting a new series of short films showcasing real places shaped by positive planning – tangible reminders of what planning can achieve when it works well and is delivered together.
But this isn’t just about valuing planners and planning. It’s about valuing the contribution that all the built environment professions and those who meaningfully engage in planning deliver in democratic decision‑making itself and the outcomes this can achieve.
If we allow abuse to become normalised and the loudest voices to prevail (rather than engaging the often silent and underrepresented majority), if we let expertise be drowned out by distortion and misinformation, we weaken the systems that shape our shared future. Planning across divides – political, professional, community – is not a “nice to have”. It’s essential.
The places we care about, and needs of people, economy and environment deserve better. So do the people working to shape them and collaborate in serving the public interest.
I will leave you with a quote to dwell on from American author Philip Yancey:
