ES News email The latest headlines in your inbox twice a day Monday - Friday plus breaking news updates Enter your email address Continue Please enter an email address Email address is invalid Fill out this field Email address is invalid You already have an account. Please log in Register with your social account or click here to log in I would like to receive lunchtime headlines Monday - Friday plus breaking news alerts, by email Update newsletter preferences

London's housing crisis can only be solved by a radical overhaul of the “deeply flawed” planning system to rein in selfish middle class “Nimbys,” a provocative new report argues today.

In comments that will anger conservation and resident bodies, former City of London Corporation supremo Sir Mark Boleat said current rules “give far too much weight to articulate groups who make a lot of noise” and not enough weight to young “have-nots” who are priced off the housing ladder.

Sir Mark, who chairs The Housing & Finance Institute, founded to boost house building, said knee-jerk opposition to development, rather than wealthy foreign investors, was the real reason for London’s chronic shortage of homes.

In a radical set of proposals, Sir Mark said that residents must have their influence hugely scaled back by excluding councillors representing residents affected by a planning application from the decision on whether it should go ahead.

Sir Mark said: “On the face of it this might seem to strike against the concept of democracy and decisions being taken at the local level.

But in reality many councillors would welcome such an approach, as all too often they feel they need to be supporting the local prevailing view even if they know that a development is desirable.”

Radical change in policy is needed Commentary: Sir Mark Boleat In 1975 I wrote a paper which opened by saying the fundamental cause of Britain’s housing problems were policy makers — 42 years later, I hold to this conclusion. Between 1998 and 2015 the population of London increased by 21 per cent while the supply of housing rose by 12 per cent. It is commonly argued that developers are the problem, building too slowly, deliberately holding on to land so as to sell it as a profit. More recently the finger has been pointed at overseas buyers, the implication being that more homes sold to foreign buyers mean less housing and higher prices for Londoners. Both of these are myths. The really big problem is the planning system. Planning committees are made up of locally elected representatives, and elected members need to be responsive to the views of their constituents. Planning applications invariably meet strong resistance from neighbouring residents who put pressure on their elected representatives. There is accordingly a presumption against development. So what is the answer? More land must be made available for house building and then built on at higher densities. There should be a review of the green belt so that land not needed to prevent urban sprawl can be used for housing. Tougher penalties should be imposed on public sector bodies that hold on to land they do not need. We must change the planning system so the bias against development is reduced. This requires changes in how conflicts are managed between local government, planning departments and developers. At present the planning system makes it too easy for politicians who wish to restrict housing development and too difficult for those who want to increase it. A radical step-change is required.

The streamlined planning “panels” modelled on the Australian system should receive proper training to help them come to decisions, he added.

Sir Mark, who this year stepped down as chairman of the City’s key Policy and Resources Committee after five years in the role, said pressure from well-organised voters often put councillors “in a near-impossible position”.

He added: “They have been elected and need to be re-elected and therefore are responsive to their electorates, who invariably are opposed to developments. But their responsibility is not just to current electors but to future generations.” The recommendations will be welcomed by developers who increasingly complain that the planning regime has become hopelessly loaded against them, leading to years of delay.

Other proposals include:

A major review of rules on the Green Belt to make it easier for low-grade land to be built on in exchange for other more valuable open space being given more protection.

A system of penalties for public sector bodies that hoard land that could be made available for development.

An assumption that planning conditions have been met within seven days of a developer providing evidence that they have been fulfilled.

Allowing far higher density of housing in the form of five- or six-storey development similar to Paris.

A radical overhaul of the “expensive and time consuming” system for negotiating developers’ contributions to local infrastructure.

A rethink of the targets for affordable housing which “cannot be expressed as a percentage of housing built but needs to be an absolute number and with a clear strategy for achieving it”.

Sir Mark said: “Housing is the No 1 domestic policy challenge of our age. We must be radical.”