The Objector AI website offers the public an AI-driven, automated way to document the planning appeals process, and claims to be able to instantly analyze applications and rank user objections based on impact.
If the AI system finds legitimate grounds for appeal, users can pay £45 to create a “dissent toolkit” containing letters, reports, videos, speeches and more to use in the process. We also offer bespoke services for large-scale developments.
The creators of Objector AI claim that by using dual AI systems simultaneously and cross-checking and combining their results, they can limit the risk of illusions and errors in the final result. Other similar AI-based systems are already on the market for generating appeal letters and materials.
But critics warn that without a clear explanation that AI was used to create challenge materials, it could lead to inaccurate or partial analyzes that decision makers could mistakenly rely on when adjudicating applications.
Iain Gilbey, planning expert at Pinsent Masons, warned that failing to properly regulate how AI is used in processes could seriously damage the reputation of planning systems and lead to appeals and legal challenges.
“This type of technology is likely to continue to proliferate, so there needs to be a relaxed and regulated approach to how it can be involved in formal planning processes,” he said.
“It would be a sensible safeguard if local authorities only required representations to be accepted if they included a declaration as to whether AI was used in whole or in part when putting together an appeal. This would reflect wider guidance from the government on the use of AI in planning appeals.”
The move comes as the UK Government seeks to further integrate AI into planning processes, following the use of AI in areas such as tidal forecasting and peat mapping for development, and the Department of Science, Industry and Technology’s consulting tools for civil service casework analysis.
Sue Chadwick, planning governance expert at Pinsent Masons, said the introduction of a dedicated AI segment into the National Planning Practice Guidelines and amendments to the Town Planning (Development Control Procedures) (England) Order 2015 was necessary to maintain a level playing field for both major and regular development applications.
“Planning systems need to embrace the role of AI in the process, but they also need to regulate its involvement,” she warned.
“At present, there is a danger that the use of AI and the pace of change is outpacing government guidance and control at the policy and regulatory level.”
Robbie Owen, infrastructure planning specialist at Pinsent Masons, added that the same considerations apply to objections to consent applications for nationally significant infrastructure projects, and other representations in relation to them, but that given the separate legal regime governing infrastructure planning, a different response is needed.
“There are concerns that the joint use of AI by participants in the six-month DCO review phase could further exacerbate the already overburdened process by adding to the large number of submissions that parties submit during each review deadline,” he explained.
“This would go against the Government’s desire to improve the overall structure of the Planning Act 2008, including the efficiency and effectiveness of reviews and, therefore, the speed of decision-making.”
