The announcement by think tank Civitas that developers are to blame for not turning a sufficient number of planning consents into bricks and mortar is both depressing and predictable, as much for the inability of the development industry to rid these misnomers as the article itself.

No one would doubt that local authorities are stretched, and that many departments are performing superbly against a backdrop of budget cuts.  We know this at first hand, and if I'm bribed enough, I'll put their names up in lights so that they can get due recognition.

However, the fact of the matter is that we have a system that awards planning permissions and not delivery.  Authorities are judged on their performance in determining quantity, and not quality of permissions, so those household applications for new loft conversions don't half polish up the performance figures. But more pertinently, once applications have been through the prescribed application cycle, officers are obliged to prioritise the next batch in the system, rather than see projects through to completion. So the myriad of pre-commencement conditions takes an age to discharge, not least because of the docile mindset of statutory consultees that shotgun the system.

As part of the Government’s drive to speed up the planning system, Housing and Planning Minister Brandon Lewis has recently announced his intention to simplify the Local Plan making process. He is following the tried and tested strategy of setting up a panel of property and planning experts to recommend a series of measures and reforms for achieving this. The panel is similar in make up to the one that created the first draft of the National Planning Policy Framework and their recommendations are likely to form the back bone of future reforms.

The recent press coverage on the Vacant Buildings Relief clause, introduced into the National Planning Policy Guidance (NPPG) in late November 2014, has engendered a fair amount of disbelief across the property divide. Local authorities in London and the South East are scratching their collective heads to understand how they have potentially lost billions of pounds in S106 contributions for affordable housing. Developers are pinching themselves at the serendipity of being presented with an unexpected windfall in their profit projections.

Of course, it would be wrong to suggest that there will not be other parts of the country where both local authorities and developers are pleased that it has suddenly become more viable to deliver brownfield land for residential development.

That, of course, was the Government's intention; to demonstrate for political purposes that they are the party of urban regeneration - of brownfield development over greenfield. The problem, is that the Government, in its desire for political gain, has once again failed to consider the detailed implications of its proposals.

DCLG published the catchily titled Technical Consultation on Planning paper at the end of last week. It’s a bit of hotchpotch of proposed changes to further refine and amend some of the Coalition’s key planning reforms. The content of the document substantiates some of the messages coming out of Government recently - that there won’t be any more major changes to the planning system, but there should be some further tinkering to make the existing system work better. An audible sigh of relief from planning officers and practitioners can almost be heard.

I spoke at the Sweet & Maxwell Planning Law Conference on the 11th February under the banner The planning system: a guiding light to economic recovery or a handbrake on growth? and very topical it was too.

Interestingly, one of my suggestions to a question from the floor on speeding up the planning system has supposed support from the Liberal Democrats; abolish Secretary of State decisions.

Why do we need Secretary of State intervention? When one stops to think about it, it's the antithesis of Localism, brings a strong whiff of politics into decision making, and it undermines the process and impartiality of the Planning Inspectorate. I think there's plenty wrong with the planning system, but the quality and integrity of appeal inspectors is not one of them.

The fact that the Chief Planning Inspector, Helen Adlard, was sat next to me had absolutely no bearing on my support for her appeal inspectors, albeit I was a bit sheepish about the title of my topic paper: RIP The Development Plan System. I'm not sure I got away with claiming it stood for 'reasonable improvements proposed'.