I regularly travel in Japan, where there is probably the best integrated public transport system in the world. For example there are Shinkansen running approximately every six minutes between Tokyo and Osaka, most major cities have Metro as well as surface local trains, and there are integrated bus services. But this does not stop Japan investing in upgrading highways and air transport.
People seem to have a mad belief that you can stop road and air transport, without alternatives. Let's see serious investment in all forms of transport, instead of wasting money on aircraft carriers, submarines and nuclear weapons we will never use. We must reduce the planning nightmare, remember how long it took to get the high speed rail link to the channel tunnel started. Investment in infrastructure will create jobs during the building phase, and continue to create wealth in the long term, unlike the wasted taxpayers money on unecessary wars and showboating schemes like the Olympics.

Gary, Currently in Tokyo, Japan

Make it easier for me to build a conservatory, fine, but make it easy for the government to build nuclear power stations wherever they want? Not fine. Never mind giving Tesco a free hand in the destruction of local communities!

What they need to do is separate domestic from business and streamline the process for eco-friendly additions to a house, such as solar panels, turbines, water harvesting projects etc. and NOT for very eco-unfriendly, and unethical, supermarkets.

Once more, the government takes a stand without looking at the ground shifting under their feet. More public consultations please!

Jennifer Hynes, Plymouth, England

Clearly, someone is getting paid. Perhaps the Times could take a closer look at the need for this bit of legislation right now?

Sean Lavin, Newfoundland, New Jersey, U.S.A.

The proposal is sound: it preserves public engagement and brings together in commission membership safeguards against ugly, environmentally reckless and economically counter productive projects. What it does accomplish is a more rational process that protects broad public interest from NIMBYs and those ideologues who are seldom if ever able to say yes. Time and again projects with widespread public support are frustrated or thwarted by narrow interests of NIMBYs and ideologues. It is time for the broad interests of the British public to be better served.

Russell Wylie, Stockton, CA, USA

Oh N-OOOOO, not again! Please don't let's make the retrograde step towards dependence on nuclear power. Why can we not spend the same huge sums on developing cheap, safe, environmentally sound energy sources, e.g. wind and wave and solar power? We are surrounded by sea, a free energy source, in the UK, and worldwide we have considerably more sea than land.
I can only think that the decision to increase the number of nuclear power stations is fuelled by some kind of vested financial interest - which surely bucks the current hopeful trend towards environmental consciousness and accountability.
Nuclear power is neither safe nor clean, as the people of Chernobyl and many leukaemia victims have discovered, nor is it cheap. And how long can we go on redistributing and concealing the nuclear waste, which goes on polluting for lifetimes?

cherry denison, London, UK

This is all very well and long over due. I've read all the recent articles and have not found the answer to what most homeowners need to know.....Please can someone tell me when it is likely to come into force?

Amanda, Gloucester,

The merits of this proposal rest on three assumptions about the government and its appointed surrogates:
1) that they know better than the people what is good for them;
2) that they are well-disposed;
3) that they are honest.

These are all very large assumptions. At the moment, I cannot see much evidence in favour of any one of them.

Michael Bruce, Selby, Yorkshire

While I welcome the move to allow home owners some latitude to do small extensions, there remains a need to be able to object if the development is disproportionate or radically impinges on neighbours or is onto Green Belt or the like.

With regard to the proposed greater freedoms being given to developers, I am even more worried. For once, I am in agreement with a Tory Shadow, Caroline Spelman in her statement saying, “Yes, the planning system needs reform – but the voice of local communities must be preserved and a democratic, accountable process must be maintained.”

I am always suspicious of such radical changes; there is usually an ulterior motive which is not always a right one or in the public or community's interest, behind such changes. I am also very wary when people talk about panels of experts and commissions; they are by definition remote and arguably impartial. There needs to remain a forum for the local community to voice its partiality; in short, "We live here."

edwardingle, chesham,

Public consultation? Yeah, right. What's the point? The government don't listen and can ride roughshod over councils and approve projects ignoring local opposition.
We don't want :-
Nuclear Power Stations - Years of blunders and leaks at Sellafield polluting the sea. Chernobyl proved operator error can have a worldwide devastiting effect.
Larger airports - depite local protest they were allowed to extend Heathrow, and the new runway will go ahead despite opposition. I know you shouldn't expect an airport to be quiet, but in 1966 when we moved here it wasn't much of a problem. We had no idea what a blight successive governments would allow it to become.
More out of town shopping - see Windsor. 1 supermarket and M&S Food Hall. When we moved here there were fish shops, butchers, bakers, greengrocers and even a deli. Now it's charity shops, pavement cafes and tourist tat.
Slough only has Tesco and Iceland now. Not much choice .

Beryl Russell, Windsor, England

What's the saving of 1 billion over 10 years compared to the billions squandered on Iraq, the Dome, useless reforms and unnecessary consultants, to name but a few?
What is needed is a transport policy that effectively removes the need for the car to be used on a daily basis for commuters, shoppers and school runs, and this will mean more in-town shopping complexes and vastly improved bus and train services that are far cheaper. Encouraging car and air miles is not going to do anyone any good in the long run. This has been recognised in some quarters for 40 years, but short-termism and me-ism has proved too strong.

Elaine, Zaragoza, Spain

The UK shouldn't give thriving industries such as airports for the sake of some fields. In addition surely forests are more important than fields.

Simon, Glasgow, UK

Government has to shoulder some blame for the time it takes to
consider planning applications. There are additional financial
considerations placed on developers, which have little to do with
planning, such as the planning gain levy (section 106), and in the
case of housing what proportion of the development has to be made
over to'affordable houses'; in the pipe line we have further taxation
of the land owner. In this largely economically driven reform, the great
failure is to neglect design and quality - there is nothing in these
proposals to address the problem of our tacky built environment.

Peter York, Tonbridge, Kent