Town hall tyrants have us up against a brick wall But I'm not. I'm typing it in a wall-ridden 1930s semi, with the plans for the extension lying, thus far untroubled by builder's hand, next to me on the table. Planning permission may be unnecessary, but you still require the approval of the council's building officer before you start work. And that takes a very long time. I can't get my head around this - my partner has explained the process to me 100 times, but I find the delays so frustrating that I don't really listen. I think that we have to gain permission for the exemption from planning permission: permission not to require permission, as it were. I'm sure there are good reasons for this - I can certainly understand why you'd want the building officer to "sign off" on work after it's done, to ensure it's of a good enough standard that it won't collapse around your (and your neighbour's) ears. But why the process of determining whether or not a proposal is "permitted" under the new rules takes so long - something that can be understood by a five-second glance at those virginal plans on the table - well, that I'm not sure about. It's hard not to suspect that councils simply don't like the new dispensation, and far from wanting to get "off our backs," will resist any move to liberalise planning rules. Barnet is blameless, I'm sure - but here's Geoffrey Samuel, the leader of Conservative-led Richmond council, warning that "a very large number, if not the majority" of councils oppose the changes. He thinks that the current relaxation is bad enough, but any further moves would make an "unpopular" situation "very much worse." Unpopular for whom? Much worse for whom? For suburban couples who want to make their house marginally larger? Or for planning officers and councillors, high on the heady power of being able to stop people adding value to their homes? I've sat on planning committees - it's a long time since I was a councillor, but I remember how much I loathed them. Not only was there something prurient about inspecting the position of Mr Voter's proposed bathroom window, the whole exercise was a farce anyway, since the planning officer was always on hand to instruct the councillors what they must, and must not, approve. If you were minded to exercise your democratic authority to block a development - to prevent the Tesco-fication of your high street, for example - you were bluntly informed that such a refusal would be illegal. But there was plenty of time to fuss about those harmless bathroom windows. Plenty of time, plenty of (taxpayers") money - and plenty of self-righteousness, too. Because while I detested those planning meetings, lots of fellow councillors loved them. I'd like to say that it was their socialism that made them hell-bent on controlling the layout of voters" homes, but Mr Samuel proves that even Tories are not immune to that exercise in authority - there's a little bit of The Good Life's Margo Leadbetter, Surbiton's self-appointed arbiter of taste, rampant in many town halls. Which is depressing, because telling people how to live is not, generally, a Tory axiom. No increase in freedom comes without risk: there is a risk that permitted developments will lead to a mushrooming of hideous, light-blocking conservatories and legal actions between neighbours, but there's also the possibility - the probability - that adults, when trusted, will behave responsibly. Before we even contacted the building control department, we invited our neighbour in for sherry and a review of our plans. Had she objected, we wouldn't have proceeded. Not that we have, thus far, "proceeded." And the reason for that, I suspect, is down to the Geoffrey Samuels of this world - men who think the world will collapse if a single conservatory is erected without their approval.