One of the few domestic issues that politicians seem to agree on is that we need to build more homes for people to live in.

But while everyone might agree with that in principle, I'm not at all sure that anything much will happen because once you start proposing building large numbers of new homes objections flood in.

At heart the majority of people are NIMBYs - they don't want new developments near where they live, especially if they are likely to "change the character" of their community.

That means that even if new developments do eventually come along there are months, possibly years, of planning arguments which cause great uncertainty and ultimately only benefit bureaucrats and lawyers.

If governments really want to boost housebuilding and the creation of new communities, it really does have to take on the role itself and not leave it up to the capricious behaviour of local authorities.

The idea of "local people making local decisions" might sound nice as a slogan, but as a method of getting new housing developments built it is recipe for inertia and stagnation.

The problem is, of course, that most human beings hate the thought of change - even if once it's happened they quite like it.

For new homes to be built on the scale that the country needs and politicians are talking about there needs to be more major developments built. 

And that must mean more than rows and rows of little boxes - you need all the facilities that go with them.

Many facilities - schools, doctors' surgeries, libraries etc - can only be provided by the public sector.

Others - shops, pubs/restaurants/leisure facilities - would be commercially-owned but still have to be planned as the overall masterplan.

And the infrastructure required - power, water, gas supplies as well as roads - is another major factor.

For all of those reasons it is far better to add significant new developments to areas which already have good connections.

It is no surprise in Suffolk that there have been major developments at Stowmarket, Saxmundham, Thurston and Red Lodge where there are good road - and in many cases rail - connections.

I've heard people in Thurston complaining about the developments changing the character of what they think of as a village - but is all change for the worst.

I was brought up in the Saxmundham area. In the 1970s it wasn't a particularly exciting place for a teenager. The best thing about it was the rail line leading to Ipswich and London.

Today the place seems much better with shopping, cafes, restaurants and general facilities. The character has certainly changed and it seems to be a far better place to live.

But I do worry about how many other places will be allowed to reach their potential while local people have the ability to stop, or slow down change.

The public sector is notoriously slow in developing new facilities - especially the NHS. A new surgery is planned to open in north west Ipswich in 2025.

It was first proposed in 2017 - you can't hurry an NHS bureaucrat!

Overall if look back in post-war history, it wasn't local councils that created new communities. It was central government that was prepared to over-rule local objections.

That's how we got Milton Keynes, Welwyn Garden City, and why Haverhill grew from being a small market town into one of the largest communities in Suffolk.

Taking powers away from local people and their councils when it comes to major developments won't be popular - but if any government wants to be serious about solving the housing crisis it really is the only way to go ahead.