Back in 2013 the government commissioned an independent review into the role of local authorities in boosting housing supply. Led by Eastleigh Borough Council leader Keith House and housing charity director Natalie Elphicke the review set out a vision of local authorities as “housing enablers”.

The context in which the review was brought forward was strikingly similar to today. An undersupply of housing, political uncertainty and a government seeking to balance the books. In short, any policy recommendations were required to support, and not endanger, getting the country’s books into balance.

We are now four years on and three years away from the government’s self-imposed target of building one million homes by 2020.

During this time the government has slowly faced up to a growing industry truism: local authority planning departments do not have sufficient funds to provide an effective service; and to ultimately support the delivery of new homes.

Even a cursory glance at the available facts would be enough to persuade the most passionate advocate of efficiency and fiscal discipline that the challenges facing council planning departments are not getting any easier. For example, according to Department for Communities and Local Government (DCLG) figures there was a 47% drop in spending by English local authorities on planning and development services between 2010 and 2016.

Although the government had showed signs of accepting this argument, a decision to enable local authorities to increase planning application fees by 20% (which if all planning authorities in England took up would raise in the region of £75 million of additional income) has been postponed, and with no news on when the application fee rise will be brought in, now seems like a good time to dust off the findings of Keith House and Natalie Elphicke.

While both councils and developers have grown increasingly frustrated by the lack of money in the system, to assume that a surge in investment will deliver better outcomes is a dangerous hypothesis; and one that misses the fundamental point that many local authorities are not assuming the mantle of housing enablers.

House and Elphicke outlined how councils could achieve much more by taking a central role in providing new homes. Their key recommendation was that councils change from being statutory providers to being Housing Delivery Enablers. Effectively focusing on creating housing , through identifying housing need, growth and opportunity.

There are astonishingly few councils, especially in the south east, who can genuinely claim that they are Housing Delivery Enablers. Take South Essex as an example.

Iceni recently undertook some research into South Essex, which sought to match how many of the circa 50,000 homes projected to be required in the sub-region could be referenced in any form of development plan – be that draft allocation or adopted plan.  We were unable to point to more than circa 3,000 plots.

So while local authority cuts are rightly in the spotlight the output of the system we have is not defined by money alone. The real onus is on local authorities to show leadership in unlocking the housing blockage, and that involves tackling front on 20 years on NIMBYism and doing what is right in the long term and not falling foul of political short-termism.

Financial resource is not a prerequisite for leadership. Instead what we require is a serious step-change in planning: in land allocation, planning permissions, money, skills, relationships between councils and developers, between councils and their residents; and between political and executive leadership.

We need leaders who can help the industry realise the potential to build the homes we need; and create the jobs and prosperity for the communities they represent.