We need houses - but don't forget the sewers But in seeking to get housebuilding moving again, the Government must target its policies correctly. It isn't the planning system that's the cause of our dismally low number of new homes - buyers aren't there because of the downturn. Developers are sitting on planning permissions, unwilling to sell cheaper homes today when they can hold on to an appreciating asset. Vince Cable has said that a 1930s-style mass housing expansion would help to fuel growth. But at that time, there weren't any planning controls, and the result was rapid and uncontrolled suburban sprawl. That was why the 1947 Town and Country Planning Act was introduced in the first place. Political leaders then saw no conflict between driving national renewal and ensuring that the countryside - whose very image had been held up as a cause for defending the nation - was protected. It's also been argued that only 12 per cent of England is developed, so what's a percentage point or two more? That makes it sound as if we have plenty of countryside left to concrete over. In fact, we can't build on mountains, hills and heathlands, national parks, areas of outstanding natural beauty or the green belt. Moreover, delivering a ringing commitment to landscapes that are already specially protected ignores the half of our still-precious countryside that isn't. The reality is that in the Sixties, nearly three quarters of England was undisturbed by development. Today, urban sprawl and the roads it brings intrudes across more than half of the country. It's the casual loss of this England, the quiet countryside around our towns and villages, that people worry about. Perhaps some home owners do try to protect their backyards. Still, the planning minister, Nick Boles, is surely right to remind us that we cannot be complacent about the need for more homes. His call for new developments to be more aesthetically pleasing is one way to encourage popular acceptance of extra housing. Another is neighbourhood planning, in which communities are given the power and responsibility to plan for their future. In contrast to Labour's counterproductive housing targets, which are at last being abolished, neighbourhood planning has the potential to deliver exactly what's needed: realistic levels of new housing provision with local support. But this new localism, which was pledged in the Coalition Agreement, must not be undermined - and there are worrying signs that local authorities feel unable to set the housing numbers they want, for fear of being overturned by the Government's planning inspectors. Communities who were promised a "fundamental shift of power from Westminster to people" will not be pleased if Labour's unfeasible housing targets are merely replaced with ones set through the back door. The Government's definition of "sustainable" development is "ensuring that better lives for ourselves don't mean worse lives for future generations." Nick Herbert is the Conservative MP for Arundel and South Downs