The much-maligned planning system is routinely blamed for our woeful lack of genuinely affordable housing, sundry delays and bureaucracy. Strangely, this criticism is routinely levelled by the very government, ministers and MPs that wrote and approved this crucial national policy after a complete rewrite in 2012. Could this possibly be a deliberate distraction from much deeper failings?

New development will always benefit some people, but adversely impact others. The key purpose of the planning system is to identify and assess all those benefits and impacts and weigh them in the balance. If negative impacts significantly outweigh the benefits, the application should be refused.

However, with agreement between planners and developers, many impacts can be prevented or mitigated by planning conditions, which must be reasonable and proportionate (and are also able to be appealed if believed to not be so). The vast majority of planning applications are approved, invariably with conditions.

It’s been interesting to note a number of letters in support of Ian Mosey Ltd, after a couple of decades of complaints about their lorries breaching planning conditions around hours of operation. When the original application for development was approved, those conditions must have been agreed between all parties to be reasonable, proportionate and financially viable for the business. It’s therefore good to see that lawful operating hours have once again been mutually agreed with planners and will perhaps now be enforced.

When new building occurs, the operating hours are set by conditions, so nearby existing residents aren’t unduly impacted by noise etc at unreasonable times. The developers clearly agree that this is reasonable and suitably profitable. I wonder if those same correspondents would write in support of adjacent noisy builders flouting conditions to routinely start work hours earlier than permitted?

Mike Potter, Pickering