Regeneration: Go for it, Gordon

Tony Blair and his government know that this second term has to be different from the first. There has to be less spin and more delivery. This is particularly true for its planning policy. In its manifesto, the Labour Party makes vague promises about modernising the system – but then, every party's manifesto does.

Reform is urgently needed. If you don't believe me, consider the example of the emerging West Berkshire District Plan. This was started in 1993 and, eight years later, is staggering towards a modifications inquiry. In the meantime, the Vodafone World Headquarters has been conceived, permission negotiated and construction started. But the district plan does not anticipate it or plan for it.

That project received permission only because of the national importance of the company involved. The scores of small and medium-sized enterprises that are not of national importance and that want to build have been frustrated by the process of developing the development plan. Any firm unwilling to wait eight years will have shelved its planned investment or gone elsewhere.

Much of the trouble has been caused by fundamental changes, such as the requirement that developers link planning applications with the council's development plans. And it has been caused by tinkering, such as the introduction of a second deposit stage for local plans (which provides everyone with two bites rather than one). The result has been thrombosis of the planning system. Thrombosis leads to a heart attack and I believe that the planning system is now closer to a seizure than at any time since I started to practise, 30 years ago.

Then there is the question of housing. In the run-up to the election, very little mention was made of the fact that we are building fewer houses in Britain than at any time since 1924.

This is a staggering and shocking statistic, but should not be a surprise. The government has ignored the recommendations made by public examination panels and has sanctioned the under-provision of housing in Hampshire, Devon, Somerset, Cheshire, Gloucestershire and Derbyshire. This was topped by last year's sidelining of Professor Stephen Crow's lucid report on the development of the South-east, which recommended the construction of 1.1 million homes.

Tinkering has led to thrombosis in the planning system. Thrombosis leads to a heart attack, and I believe that the planning system is now closer to a seizure than at any time since I started to practise 30 years ago

In contrast, it is clear that the development industry is doing its best to keep its side of the bargain on urban renaissance, as set out in PPG3, the government's revised planning guidance for housing. Densities are higher, there is less parking and more emphasis on design quality. This was apparent at the House Builders Federation annual conference last October and was reinforced by the entries at this month's Housing Design Awards at the RIBA. And recent proposals, such as this week's application for the new neighbourhood at West Stevenage, take the implementation of PPG3 further.

The government obviously needs to act to avoid being upstaged by industry. But what path should it take? It is obvious to me that it needs to be radical. One of the most important things that the government must do is to remove the link between planning applications and development plans – but this particular measure would require primary legislation. What the government can do more easily is to replace the three-tier system of regional plans, structure plans and local plans with two tiers.

It could also outlaw prescriptive policies and detailed maps by replacing them with simple criteria-based policies against which well-formulated applications can be judged. This would remove the presumption in favour of development only if it was catered for in the development plan. It is only in this way that we'll be able to deliver the investment we need.

The driver for planning delivery no longer seems to be the DTLR, but Gordon Brown. He can see the consequences of the government's policy. These include a less flexible and mobile workforce, regional disparities, higher house prices and wage demands and higher prices. It will be harder to reduce interest rates and meet the economic criteria to join the euro.

On top of this, there are the social consequences of deferred household formation, reduced living standards and increased social exclusion. It is not a coincidence that the announcement of the lowest level of housebuilding for more than 75 years coincided with the announcement that there are now 75,000 households in temporary accommodation for the homeless – the most ever. This does not seem to square with the first line of the planning guidance on housing, which says that the government "intends that everyone should have the opportunity of a decent home".