A WAVE of changes to Britain’s planning laws has faced backlash from politicians to campaigners.

The announcements have even been divisive among Conservatives, especially those in local government.


RELATED: Massive planning reforms announced in Government bid to hit housing target


Cllr Linda Vijeh is the Conservative leader on South Somerset District Council, as well as a county councillor.

Here she sets out her response to the Government’s Planning for the Future White Paper:


I HAVE a number of issues with what is proposed, and it seems in Somerset many local residents share my views.

While it is right we seek to ensure there are affordable homes available for ‘young people and create better quality homes and neighbourhoods across the country’ the statement in itself leaves much to be desired.

We aim to ensure new developments provide an element of ‘affordable housing’ - although affordable for whom?

Once planning permission is secured, the developer will then say to provide such affordable housing makes the project unviable.

In my 17 years as a district councillor I have seen this happen time and time again. Our failure to build affordable homes, ones that are not second-rate, is purely down to the greed of developers.

In South Somerset in particular we have continuously been victim to our failure to meet a five-year land supply.

The impact of this is that, against our better judgement, planning permission is granted under the threat that the applicant will win on appeal anyway.

The problem is the developer, responsible for the ‘slow’ delivery, then sits on the land. As long as building does not commence the approved development is not deemed to contribute towards the required land supply.

The most suitable land could be grabbed for the benefit of ‘Build, Build, Build’ and then building delayed until it suits the developer’s bottom line. Land hoarding is a real problem and needs to be controlled by legislation.

The proposals do not take into account employment land, or economic viability, which can be an issue in the South West where employment opportunities are limited and wage levels low.

In addressing some of the issues we face, two things come to mind.

One being that a system must be in place to issue penalties for those who do not comply with planning conditions, or who build without permission and then apply for retrospective permission.

A new statutory timetable should be introduced requiring developers to begin developments within a given timeframe, with penalties for failure to deliver.

This consultation also fails to address the issue of planning authorities failing to deal with applications within the statutory timeframe.

Locally elected members have an important part to play in the planning process, acting as the conduit, and mediator, between the planning officer, the developer and local community.

At present we are only consulted once the officer report is produced; rather too late.

It is stated that local democracy will be at the heart of the process, but with it being increasingly difficult for communities to feel they have a voice, in South Somerset at least, I have little faith in this.

Make no mistake, people are well and truly fed up, and will not be afraid to vote with their boots when the time comes.

In Somerset, we have lost faith in promised improvements to our trunk roads, public transport and education provision.

Which should come first, housing or infrastructure?

If central government is willing to invest our money in projects to improve our lives, then surely infrastructure must come first. Once in place, then appropriate development will naturally follow.

In light of concerns over the environment, for some time now we have been talking about ensuring that new homes meet our climate change and environmental objectives but there is little evidence that developers are taking heed, and a woeful lack of enforcement where planning conditions are not met.

Who will be in receipt of the Infrastructure Levy, and who will decide where and how it is spent? The community which is affected by the development? I fear not.

I fully appreciate the need to do what we can to boost the economy and agree wholeheartedly that the current planning system is ‘complex and slow’ and not fit for purpose.

On the table are a range of measures, but this tends to ask more questions than it answers.