Angela Rayner is letting greedy developers off the hook - and we're all paying the price

Go on, call me a NIMBY. It's okay, I really don't mind. It's something I'm accused of from time to time - but as a local councillor, I think caring deeply about my area and wanting any development to be thoughtful, sustainable and fair on other residents is the bare minimum people should expect.

Right now, however, it feels like the very last field in our area is about to be concreted over. A planning application has just gone in from one of the big developers. Hundreds of cookie-cutter homes that no one asked for.

These estates seem to be thrown up in next to no time, featuring endless rows of identikit homes with little thought to the wider community. Green spaces are limited to a grass verge or two, streets are lined with cars that don't fit in diddly driveways and gardens are just about big enough for a solitary deckchair.

I get it. We do need more homes in the UK. But I just don't think this is the way. I'd far prefer more innovative solutions, such as reviving abandoned town centres by incorporating living accommodation and real discounts for first-time buyers in neighbourhoods that need stability and longer-term residents. I'm not anti-development, just anti-bad development.

I strongly feel that these boxy new builds shouldn't be shoved on every inch of our countryside without careful consideration of the pressure they'll put on the existing infrastructure: the roads, the schools, the health services.

Getting a GP appointment is already a nigh-on-impossible task in many areas. A check-up at the dentist? Forget it.

With Angela Rayner dead set on hitting her 1.5 million new homes target by hook or by crook, I predict this pressure will increase to boiling point in many communities. But in her rush to say goodbye to our green belt, she is missing the one big thing that could help bring rightly fed-up residents on board: holding greedy developers to account.

Because as a local councillor, I can tell you that the whole thing at the moment is a big joke and as shoddy as a slapdash new build. In fact, a Labour mess-up over this very issue was one of the first reasons I became a councillor back in 2019.

Here's how it's supposed to work. When developers are given planning permission for a big new estate, part of the deal with the local council involves agreeing on something called a Section 106 payment. These payments, which can be significant, are requested by the local council to fund vital infrastructure upgrades needed as a result of the new estate. They are also used to pay for affordable homes. In reality, it's a shady, messy and ill-thought-out process that often fails, with local residents left paying the price.

In my area a huge new estate was being planned. The local school - which my children attended - had been promised money for a new classroom due to the ever-increasing intake. But behind closed doors, the agreement had been changed. The money could be spread to other schools.

I campaigned on the matter and, when I was elected, we managed to ensure that money did go to the original school and the rest was ring-fenced to other schools solely in the area affected. The woodland walks, country park and other delights that we've also been promised? Let's just say a decade or so on, we're still waiting.

This isn't just a local story. It's happening up and down the country.

Before the election, Rayner made a big deal about cracking down on the developers, saying that she would create a - wait for it - 'Take Back Control Unit' to help councils insist the cash is paid. Well, currently it seems that councils are actually part of the problem too.

In fact, it's been reported that councils are sitting on millions of unspent Section 106 monies that should be getting ploughed back into local communities as soon as they get it. It was reported in April that Medway Council is sitting on almost £19.5million of unused funds meant for health, education and leisure projects.

There needs to be transparent rules about these behind-the-scenes negotiations and the agreements need to be properly enforced. In fact, let's make things crystal clear by insisting developers pay a percentage of their profits directly into supporting projects that are needed in the communities they will be profiting from. Let's get strict timelines for delivery and impose legal consequences if not.

So yes, I might be a bit of a NIMBY but I'm one who doesn't want other communities to be affected by poor developments in the same way mine has been. It's time Rayner stopped just talking tough and actually acted. Let's stop giving a free pass to developers who have had one for far too long.