The "Planning for the Future" White Paper - it must have friends, but they're awfully shy...

I'm not what you'd describe as an expert on planning. Yes, I do have to consider planning applications as part of my role as Chair of a small Parish Council, but I'm rarely involved in anything other than pretty straightforward stuff - Gateway 14 excepted, of course. And we're not decision makers in any sense, just statutory consultees.

That's not to say that I don't take an interest however, and in my new guise as a member of the NALC National Assembly, there is a greater obligation upon me to at least understand the wider issues that impact on the world beyond the Gipping Valley. And, in truth, the Planning White Paper currently out for consultation is one of those documents which, if left unchallenged, is likely to have some pretty negative repercussions.

It comes with a foreword from the Prime Minister - the usual blue sky, inspirational schtick - and one from Robert Jenrick, who simply misrepresents the situation on the ground (perhaps not surprising given the accusations that he is in the pocket of developers), in suggesting that reform will allow more houses to be built where they're needed. It wouldn't be cynical to suggest that were he to have a word with the big housebuilding firms, he might persuade them to use the existing planning permissions they have, rather than sitting on them.

The general consensus in the local government community is that the planning system achieves two things pretty well - disempowering local authorities through the presumption that development is good, and offering false hope to local communities through encouragement to develop local plans that can easily be overridden. Neither is a good thing.

From the perspective of a statutory consultee, my problems are generally with enforcement, if truth be told. Mid Suffolk District Council is pretty useless at policing the planning conditions it sets itself, which rather means that planning conditions, i.e. the things that protect local communities from the more egregious acts of planning applicants, become irrelevant. The White Paper doesn't really touch upon that, focussing on tightening timetables and introducing sanctions for local authorities who breach deadlines. What's the penalty for developers who breach their conditions, or seek to alter them by stealth? How are local communities compensated for breaches?

And there doesn't appear to be a lot of support out there. The National Association of Local Councils (my local government "trade union") suggests in its response that;

the current proposals would result in a democratic deficit in planning and would not tackle the key issue (housing supply), leading to a slow down in the delivery of more housing. NALC also thinks that Local Plans will need much more than the suggested 30 months to put together.

The Royal Town Planning Institute don't like it either...

While a single flat rate tax sounds appealing, it cannot work for the country as a whole,” she says. “Set the rate too high, and you risk preventing development from coming forward in struggling areas or complex brownfield sites, set it too low and profitable developments will not make a fair contribution to affordable housing and critical infrastructure. It doesn’t address the bigger issue – the lack of proper investment by government in affordable housing.

So, my sense is that this is a "developers charter", wrapped up in pretty language about local democracy, beauty and efficiency. After all, Robert Jenrick was so supportive of local authorities that he acted unlawfully to deny Tower Hamlets £45 million to support local infrastructure. Don't study what they say, study what they do...