A RECENT correspondent raised the question of why councils grant planning permission for large houses local people don’t need, when what’s required are smaller houses for the less well-off.

What some members of the public never manage to understand is that the council doesn’t choose the applications which developers put before them. They have to deal with whatever comes up. If the application conforms to planning legislation they have to grant permission. Whether the councillors personally like the application is beside the point.

Sorry, but that’s the way it is. In law, all that matters is ‘Do the plans comply with the regulations?’.

In Eastleigh we don’t need more four- or five-bed houses for local people, but developers are concerned with profit, not providing a social service.

They apply to build houses which they are confident they can sell.

That these are too expensive for local first-time buyers or that the new owners will come from outside the area and add to road congestion with their four-by-fours is not the developers’ concern. Sorry again – but that’s how it is.

Those who blame the council are blaming it for complying with the law. What do such people want?

Councils to act illegally? Sort of ‘Stuff the regulations. I don’t like your application so I’m going to turn it down. Go ahead and sue me’?

Which is what then happens.

The developer goes to appeal, wins and gets his permission over the council’s head. So what was the point? Added to that, the council tax payer is saddled with costs – both its own and the developer’s.

Up goes your council tax.

That the Lib Dems are in charge in Eastleigh is beside the point. If the Tories were in control they would do exactly the same thing: grant permission for any development, however undesirable, provided it conformed with Government regulations. They have a long history of pretending otherwise, but don’t fall for it.

When I was chairman, I often had to metaphorically hold my nose when granting permission for developments which I thought were totally unacceptable. But it went with the job. Refusing permission on non-planning grounds (i.e. my personal objections) might boost my ego and make me feel I was ‘standing up for the public’, and probably earn me a cheap round of applause. But indulging my personal views would cost the taxpayer thousands, without stopping the obnoxious development – so a pointless gesture.

If councils were still allowed to build houses themselves, things might be different. They could build what’s needed for local people. But they can’t.

Sorry, for a third time. That’s just the way it is.

Martin Kyrle