The range of planning powers, controls and policies should be reduced. Explain how one might agree and disagree with this statement. I will approach this title by focusing on planning in the UK. First by briefly defining powers, controls and policies as they exist today. A quick historical review of the modern planning system and the changes made to it will help contextualize the decision whether to increase or decrease them. I will then move on to a discussion of the factors and organizations that might cause a change in the planning system. In the UK planning powers are known as delegated powers. This allows planners to make decisions about applications. In this way, planning officers are given a certain level of discretion and can engage in pre-application negotiations with developers. Controls are the system by which individual planning requests are evaluated. Developments that are sufficiently positive for the public interest are permitted, while others are rejected on a case-by-case basis. Local planning authorities have statutory responsibility for this. The controls are known as development control and are guided by government planning policies. Planning policies are prepared by government and detail statutory provisions and guidance for local authorities. They come in the form of Planning Policy Guidance Notes (PPG) and now Planning Policy Statements (PPS). These documents explain the relationships not only between land use issues but also other legislative areas that need to be considered in the formulation of local plans (Communities and local authorities [undated]). The modern system of planning powers, controls and policies arose from public health concerns in the 19th century. Before the nineteenth century landowners and developers had an almost free reign… the middle of the paper… did not reduce the role of planning. The government appears less interested in reducing powers, controls and policies, but instead focuses on clarifying existing ones (DCLG 2009) and producing new ones that are more quantifiable. In conclusion, I would say that neither an increase nor a decrease in powers, controls and policies is necessary right now. As seen above, the planning system has been strengthened by successive governments in response to scientific and social pressures. The arguments in favor of reduction are mainly economic in nature but, as demonstrated, planning is used as a tool for much more than just economics. The focus on sustainability and the cooperative nature of land use planning make it difficult to ease economic restrictions in isolation. Current governments focus on greater quantitative clarity and accountability appears to be a more realistic and useful strategy.