Angela Rayner is either showing her ignorance of how the planning system works or she has been duped by the home builders’ lobby if she believes that reforming planning by itself will result in Labour achieving its aim of 1.5m new homes in this parliament (Rayner set to hit English councils that block new housing with tougher sanctions, 29 August).
Ever since the sale of council housing under the Conservatives left councils with none of the land value of those homes, we have lacked the ability for councils to control their local land market. It is the developer that decides when to submit a planning application, when to start building once a housing development gets consent, and the rate of building. Councils cannot influence any of that. Once development has started (any little bit of siteworks is enough) it can take years for the slightest progress to happen and councils can do nothing.
That’s why we have land with planning consent for more than a million new homes in this country. To achieve a significant increase in new homes, the law must penalise developers for not building on allocated and consented sites. These could be considered liable to business rates.
The planning and infrastructure bill seems toothless, and overriding local decision-makers just proves what residents already think – that plan-making is pointless.
Cllr Dr Tony Vickers
West Berkshire council
The proposals to intervene when councils “consistently make poor-quality decisions about planning applications and prevent the delivery of the homes and infrastructure we need” is the latest attempt to blame local government for the nation’s housing crisis.
Making a local plan is a statutory duty. Councils take a long time to put them together as they are prepared with the full involvement of their communities, and are required to take an evidence-based, comprehensive approach to assessing an area’s needs. They are subject to rigorous independent examination. Allowing ministers subsequently to impose ad hoc changes would destroy what little faith people have left in the integrity of the planning system.
Instead of picking a fight with local planning authorities, the government should focus on developers that sit on land with planning permission. A “use it or lose it” rule was advocated by Labour as far back as 2014. What’s stopping them now that they have a thumping majority?
David Kaiserman
Wilmslow, Cheshire
Your article raises profound concerns for communities like mine in Cheshire. Barratt Homes is proposing a large development on green belt land bordering an ancient woodland. The damage this would inflict on wildlife, habitats and heritage would be permanent.
This is not a case of resisting homes for the sake of it. Frodsham has a neighbourhood plan (2024), approved by more than 70% of residents in a referendum, which identifies suitable sites for housing while safeguarding natural assets. To dismiss such a plan would not only undermine faith in the planning system but also erode trust in the local democracy.
The proposed development comes with no new GP surgeries, no extra school places or road improvements. Frodsham is not unique – the risk is national. Once our green belt and ancient woodlands are lost, they are lost for ever.
Dr Edward Thomas Roberts
Frodsham, Cheshire
