Congratulations, you have won the ‘frackpot’ and will receive a cheque for £10,000 in the post.

Is this exactly how planning could, and perhaps should, work in the future? After all, money does make the world go round, and direct payment should be considered part of a fair compensation package. That is certainly one view, but your neighbour might see their cheque as nothing more than a bribe to accept environmentally damaging development, pitting neighbour against neighbour and potentially dividing a community.

At the weekend, Theresa May announced a proposed modification to George Osborne’s ‘Shale Wealth Fund’ which, when introduced, pledged that 10% of tax revenues raised from shale gas operations would be invested into the ‘shale wealth fund’, that could be accessed by local authorities and community groups.

The formal consultation that was launched on Monday and closes in October will review the operation of the ‘Shale Wealth Fund’ and consider how local residents can benefit directly from the fund. Right now a lot of questions remain unanswered, for example when will payments be made, who will receive the payments, what does this mean for other mooted investment in community infrastructure, and what about other infrastructure: HS2, Heathrow and Crossrail 2?

More broadly, will, as has been suggested, the successful introduction of a scheme for shale gas speed up the introduction of a similar payment mechanism for housing developments, that could reform the widely criticised Community Infrastructure Levy and spell the end of the New Homes Bonus? Although the latter is derived from central Government coffers and not land value.

It is clear that the Government will need to think very carefully about the ramifications of moving towards a direct compensation system, not least because the lessons learnt from the HS2 compensation programme highlight the difficulty in calculating a fair financial package. There will also be those who will be rightfully concerned about the possible reduction in money given to Councils to manage the knock on effect of development on community infrastructure.

But, I will say this to the naysayers: how often do collective payments really meet public concerns at all, and where is the accountability and transparency in the current system that sees funding go into the reserves of local government to be spent on local politicians’ priorities, which perversely doesn’t even have to be spent on projects in the community directly affected by approved development? To be clear, I’m not saying abolish collective payments altogether. A happy medium is required, that sees planning gain spilt between funding for new infrastructure, and direct compensation that is large enough to convince the majority to accept development.