Whether they want bustling urban centers, lush-green subdivisions or cozy rural villages, Virginia localities are required to plan for their growth.

But with the exception of reviewing those plans at least once every five years, officials may ignore their own recommendations if they choose.

And many do, said Glenn Larson, president of the Virginia chapter of the American Planning Association.

"Very often what happens is that a lot of effort goes into a local comprehensive plan and then, for whatever reason, the plan is not followed. It's put on a shelf."

The result is outdated comprehensive plans and zoning ordinances, haphazard growth and development decisions that are more political and contentious than they have to be, planners say.

In Chesterfield County, officials recently backed a developer's plan to build 65 homes off Beach Road in an area marked for conservation. In New Kent County, officials were swayed by a request to allow 42 homes on Henpeck Road in an area designated for "mixed-use development."

Officials defended those decisions by noting special circumstances and saying growth has to occur somewhere.

The Virginia chapter of the American Planning Association is recommending that state laws be changed to require consistency between a locality's zoning decisions and its comprehensive plan.

The chapter, which has about 1,000 members, also wants localities to be given the same powers to offset the costs of roads, schools and other public infrastructure needed to support growth.

Finally, the planners are calling for stronger leadership, particularly from the state. The group says Virginia needs an agency or office to help localities on growth matters.

Such a move shouldn't create any additional regulatory authority for the state, the planners said in a report prepared last year for the Virginia Coalition of High Growth Communities.

The coalition, which represents 24 localities, has pressed the General Assembly since 1998 for additional powers to manage growth.

Specifically, the coalition wants authority to assess "impact fees" - charges localities would levy against each new home to help offset the costs of new schools, roads and the like. It also wants the authority to postpone development in areas until schools, roads and other services can be upgraded.

The Home Builders Association of Virginia contends localities already have sufficient tools. A General Assembly committee is taking a closer look at the issue this summer in public hearings across the state.

Larson, of the Virginia chapter of planners, said the increasing concerns about negative impacts of growth have led many localities to pay more attention to their comprehensive plan. Even localities that aren't experiencing significant growth would benefit from a strong comprehensive plan.

"It's almost like retirement planning," he said. "You've got to start early and you've got to think comprehensively about where you want to be 40 years from now. If you don't follow the plan, you may be in a different place" in the future.

John V. Cogbill III, a zoning lawyer active in Chesterfield, agreed that comprehensive plans are important and should be followed. He disagreed with requiring zoning decisions to be consistent with the plans.

"The comprehensive plan is a guide. To require it to become of an ironclad nature, it takes away the living nature for which it was intended."

Communities have only themselves to blame if their plan is outdated and ignored, Cogbill said. "It requires good planning and good leadership."

Benjamin H. Graham, president of the Home Builders Association of Virginia, said, in general, planning isn't the problem in Virginia.

Localities struggling with crowded schools and congested roads often try to solve those problems with policies that drive up housing costs and exacerbate sprawl by increasing lot sizes and reducing densities. Those approaches need to be reconsidered, he said.

"We have a revenue problem, an allocation problem, an infrastructure problem and an education problem," Graham said.

Local officials also sometimes downplay their comprehensive plans because landowners consider them an affront to property rights, said Michael L. Toalson, executive vice president of the home builders association.

"It works fine until you tell the people what you're doing to them."

The Coalition for Smarter Growth tends to support the idea of requiring consistency between comprehensive plans and zoning decisions, said Stewart Schwartz, executive director of the Washington-based activist group.

He said many plans should be overhauled to embrace compact, walkable communities, rather than sprawling development.

Many times, residents who get involved in updating a comprehensive plan aren't around when developers' zoning proposals are being decided, Schwartz said. "People lead busy lives, and it's difficult for them to stay involved and watchdog their government."

The quality of planning and the degree to which elected officials heed the advice varies across the state, Schwartz said. In some areas, planners have gotten frustrated, doing little more than respond to developers' plans.

Schwartz said he's amazed the Virginia chapter of planners, whose members include local government employees, would be so bold to call for leadership.

"We do need state leadership, particularly from the executive branch. That's what distinguishes the states that are addressing the issue or not."

Localities also need to look more critically at their comprehensive plans, counting the homes and totaling the amount of retail and office space that could be built, Schwartz said. By planning and zoning for more growth than they need, localities give up some of their ability to manage it in the future, he said.

Problems also arise when localities write comprehensive plans without looking closely at the plans of neighbors, Schwartz said.

"This argues for some sort of regional cooperation."