ÐÇ¿Õ´«Ã½

Having looked at the programme, it is clear that just as with most other conferences there will be a call for more research, and a demand for greater funding to the public sector so that they can pay architects and consultants to draw up plans on how to put right their mistakes of the last 30 years.

And it is interesting to see that none of the sessions at the Urban Summit are chaired by residential developers.

After 16 years in the public sector I have, for the past 13 years, worked in the private sector with both national and regional developers. Their outputs are often criticised in design terms, but very little, if any, of what the private sector has sold to owner-occupiers or investors in the last 30 years has needed demolition or public sector resources to improve it physically – unlike many public sector schemes. The last time local authorities secured major public funding and used their landholdings to build wall-to-wall single-tenure social housing, it was poorly managed; it failed this country and is costing us dearly in economic, environmental and social terms.

For too long, there has been a major separation between the public and private sectors and there needs to be a step change in order to deliver the urban renaissance.

The vocabulary of regeneration includes partnerships, catalysts, incentives, yet from a private sector perspective, what I see in reality are obligations, requirements and criticism of the private sector: our designs are not good enough, social conscience is not big enough, we make too much money – and yet the future housing provision is dependent on our delivery. So why aren't local authorities and government focusing on ways to get developers and their shareholders to take risks? Perhaps a whole session at the summit should be devoted to just that.

The perception that communities are nice and developers are bad must be rebalanced if we are to have an urban renaissance the world? There’s nothing to it

Developers want to regenerate, but schemes have to be commercially viable to maintain investment. If developers were given greater encouragement to build and were freed up to move ahead rapidly, 80% brownfield development could be delivered. Sustainable development requires more efficient use of land. We need a progressive agenda of integrated mixed-use, mixed-tenure, sustainable development.

Planners need to become facilitators, not controllers. The summit needs to send a clear message to local authorities and inspectors that the urban renaissance and the delivery of new homes is of national importance. There has to be an acceptance that local issues cannot take precedence over national need and the perception that local communities are nice and developers are bad has to be rebalanced.

Local authorities must give responsible developers incentives to come forward, and differentiate these from 20th-century housebuilders.

So, here's my agenda for the delivery of more quality housing and the urban renaissance:

• local authorities and inspectors actively helping responsible development
  
• section 106 affordable housing limited to 25% and fully funded
  
• presumption in favour of intrinsically sustainable development delivering fast-track consents
  
• the potential re-introduction of urban development corporations with a simplified planning regime
  
• the welcoming of a strong and profitable development industry, attracting investment to brownfield sites and valuing our innovation and ingenuity; perhaps corporation tax could be reduced to stimulate urban renaissance investment
  
• recognise the cost of good quality neighbourhood management.

We are at a critical time. The economic impact of destroying the housebuilding industry will have far-reaching effects, vastly reducing any chance of the urban renaissance and removing the opportunity for everyone to be decently housed.