The fundamental framework of how planning works in a country is set by the overall ideology of the country within the periods being examined. The difference between eras and places is clear enough, if one scans systems of planning from the late 19th century. This ideological conditioning also works more continuously, with the changing pressures for reform of planning being in part driven by ideology as well. However, we have also seen that ‘everyday’ politics has an important role in this month-to-month and year-to-year shifting of planning policies and systems. What we look at here in this and the next chapter is the way in which the duo also condition the way in which different facets or fields of planning are affected.

Here therefore I am examining varying ways in which one can ‘carve up’ planning as an activity. Often the most important distinctions may seem to be between the type of development which is being decided on – housing, industry, transport infrastructure, retail. Here these are called planning fields, given that the term ‘sector’ is often now used in a slightly different way to refer to ‘the planning sector’. But often it may be interesting to put the spotlight on the distinctions flowing from the facets of consideration which are most salient in any development, for example heritage, design or environmental impacts of many kinds. Another division which brings out other important features is that between the dominant forms of planning activity, certainly within most local authorities: those of development control or management (of planning applications), of plan making and of implementation work, often promotion of schemes for renewal or development by the council in partnership with the private sector.

We will find that some fields, facets or forms have a more pronounced ideological character, which makes the play of shorter-term political change less vigorous, while others can be more subject to such pressures, both nationally and locally. It was suggested in Chapter 1 that some planning matters will be ideologically hotter, if they are nearer the core issues of maintaining the system (the form of capitalism being one key element of that), and that this was mediated by fields of planning and scalar issues.