ºÃÉ«ÏÈÉúTV

Since starting this occasional column, I have been a critic of the complexity, inconsistency and lack of vision endemic in the British planning system. The results of these problems are patently obvious: frustrated investment, low levels of housing provision of all types, congestion, inferior design and appallingly long decision-making processes.

But now it seems we might really be on the edge of change. Stephen Byers said in his recent speech on 26 July to the Institute of Public Policy Research that "if the system is broke – and quite a few people seem to think it is – then we have got to fix it". In the last few weeks, Lord Falconer, minister for housing, planning and regeneration, and his colleagues have been holding seminars in Exeter, Birmingham, Leeds and Guildford to hear the views of consumers on the planning system in order to obtain input into the green paper, which is likely to be published before the end of this year.

The government identifies the main difficulties with the present system as lack of speed, lack of customer focus, lack of involvement by local people and over-complication. Development control is seen as slow, cumbersome and inconsistent. There is a feeling that the flow of prescriptive advice from the government, communicated in the form of planning policy guidance notes, is too elaborate. The number of plans – regional, structural, unitary development, local and supplementary planning guidance – is too much and does not add value, and planning gain can be a much-abused lottery.

All this is helpful analysis, but only if it leads to workable reform. There has been a series of research projects over the years into the planning system which have had little or no effect. This time, however, there appears to be a real political will to institute change – but as usual, the choices are not clear-cut.

There does appear, however, to be a strong call for the introduction of simpler, criteria-based plans, which will not contain 250 policies or prescribe the use of every parcel of land for the next 10 to 15 years. This would allow well-based planning applications to be judged more on their merits and less on complying with the details of policies conceived years ago in a completely different economic situation.

The results of the complexity, inconsistency and lack of vision endemic in the British planning system are patently obvious: frustrated investment, congestion, inferior design and appallingly long decision-making processes

There also appears to be a strong move to make planning gain more transparent. This, however, is usually accompanied by local authorities setting out their ever-increasing tariff of requirements for affordable housing, community buildings and facilities, open space and other leisure services, car parking provision, recycling facilities, paths and roads, and anything else they can think of. Construction clients are now being asked to provide similar contributions, including affordable housing. Is Ford asked to provide roads, or Mothercare asked to provide creches? Why should developers be asked to take on such responsibilities?

The trouble with these apparently "transparent" lists is that there is nobody to prioritise the disparate requests, all of which are pursued by different authorities, each with the view that theirs is the most important requirement. This should be the role of the planning authority, but they don't usually recognise it. The result can undermine the viability of important projects and stagnate development.

A classic case of this kind can be seen in Bexhill-on-Sea, East Sussex, where a much-needed further education development is being asked to fund contributions to other parts of the education system, rather than invest the whole of its funds into further education. This illustrates how important it is that a transparent system doesn't just become an unthinking system.

One disturbing aspect of the consultation on ideas for the green paper was the composition of the audience at the recent seminar in Guildford. It comprised largely representatives of local government, regional quangos, non-governmental organisations and environmental groups. There were two housebuilder representatives and one public company representative. There were no representatives of commercial developers, retailers, major landowners, investors or pension funds. It seems their voices have yet to be heard.