Over the past few decades, there has been a significant reduction in the scope of what the state believes it (and, as an extension of the state, planning) can achieve.

I was more focusing on the fact that govt uses planning (at a national level) to respond to market signals rather than directing growth to the places that are 'left behind' - which has knock on effects for communities, regional equality, opportunity etc.

We need well-funded local authorities, able to be proactive with planning powers to deliver critical infrastructure; stop private developers & land owners seizing publicly created value; & coordinate the delivery of housing + services + transport in places that serve communities.

I describe it as a 'conflict' but in reality it's an issue that the govt is swerving (and I'm not being too critical here, just acknowledging it).

In theory it should be a key function of planning at national level, but in reality it comes second to focus on delivery of infra + housing.

Labour betting heavily on strategic planning?

These changes from the government are def. welcome - just need to weather a period of appeals while LPAs get LPs in place.

I do think there needs to be conversations about an 'each council takes their share' approach to new homes, though. Hopefully, strategic planning will help.

Ah, thank you!

Forgive me but what do you mean by the "Peter Barber boom"?