Councils need to prepare for objection letters from neighbours that don’t exist

I n a first – or first to be caught, Aldo d’Aponte, CEO, Arbitrage Group Properties, has pleaded guilty to using AI to create fake planning objections to London nightclub Heaven, having generated letters by neighbours that don’t exist. D’Aonte was given a 12-month conditional discharge, ordered to pay £85 and a £26 victim surcharge. 

 

The fakery was discovered by Philip Kolvin KC, a planning lawyer, who put the letters through an AI detection generator when investigating the objections pro bono. Police then tracked the IP addresses to d’Aponte. The lawyer said councils need to be “alert to this problem” and check the veracity of objections.

According to The Guardian, there are two further cases that police are exploring that involve AI fakery of objections. How many that haven’t been noticed?

 

I’ve written about the time-wasting risks of AI before – how productive and prodigious AI-written Design and Access statements (which could contain false planning precedents or other hallucinations) and postcode-based auto-Nimby objection services could overwhelm the planning system. But deliberate fakery is now an issue too. Imagine the potential cost of processing and rooting out inventions and falsehoods.

While it may be tempting to invest in AI detection tools, this is an exercise in tail-chasing. The world is changing. It’s not practical to adapt our current systems and processes, we need a radical rethink.

 

Councils could look to universities, which have been adapting to AI-powered cheating for longer. While many tried to root out AI at first, some leading universities have given up on AI detection and shifted their focus onto evidence of learning. There’s an expectation that use of AI will be cited and clearly signposted – and a move to evaluating students in new ways.

Councils could do the same, shifting their focus from receiving planning objections to demanding evidence of public support. They could prioritise face-to-face community engagement and public consultation, and rely less on text-based submissions such as letters and reports. Rethinking text-based democratic processes now feels inevitable, and we need to get on with it.

 

If adapting to AI leads to more meaningful and inclusive systems and processes that are transparent and in-real-life, this could be a good thing – fostering community and connection through initiatives such as citizen assemblies and review panels.

 

There’s no going back.

 

---

Christine Murray is the founding editor-in-chief of The Developer and founding director of the Festival of Place and The Pineapples awards for place.