George Osborne's announcement seemed pretty bold. "We're introducing a presumption in favour of sustainable development," the chancellor said. "This is the biggest reduction in business red tape ever undertaken".
But hang on a minute. For 20 years now, we've already had a presumption in favour of development that accords with the statutory development plan. As housing and planning minister, Sir George Young piloted that clause through parliament in 1990. Later, changes in the law meant that plans had to be prepared with a view to contributing to the achievement of sustainable development.
So, what exactly is new? Certainly not the government commitment to sustainable development. That has been around since the 1980s, first becoming policy when Lord Patten was environment secretary, and enthusiastically embraced by his successors. It was the focus of the first Rio Earth summit, repeated again in June this year when world leaders come together to take stock of progress and renew their commitment 20 years on. Neither is it new to suggest that today's presumption in favour of sustainable development is stronger in the absence of an up-to-date plan.
But it is new to apply the sustainable development test to individual development proposals. The chancellor's 2012 budget describes a new "powerful" presumption – underpinning not only plans but decisions too.
Over two decades, governments of different complexions have resisted NGO pressure to make that a legal requirement. There were warnings of long drawn out public inquiries, providing rich pickings to lawyers and other professionals rather than delivering the development the nation needed. Successive ministers have made clear that the overall achievement of sustainable development did not necessarily mean each and every development had to pass the sustainability test.
In fact, applying the presumption to decisions ought not only "to better support growth", as the budget document puts it, but also to support better growth. After all, sustainable development is not the negative concept that some commentators maintain.
According to the government, guidance already makes clear that it is about building a strong, stable and lasting economy to provide prosperity and opportunities for all. It means charging those responsible for the environmental and social costs they impose on society and thus incentivising efficient resource use. It means respecting the limits of the planet's environment, resources and biodiversity – improving the environment and quality of life for all.
The whole point of sustainability is to ensure that the natural resources needed for life are unimpaired and remain so for future generations – for all people, in existing and future communities.
Planning minister Greg Clark has reiterated this line, urging councils to look for net improvements on all dimensions of sustainability; and making explicit that the presumption in favour of sustainable development works through, not against, local plans.
Government help for councils to get the plans drawn up quickly is good news for sustainable development. Perhaps it will lead to councillors on planning committees reaching out to the development industry and business investors, inviting them to invest in sustainable development in their local authority area. It should certainly help provide more clarity about where development is welcome, and where conservation of natural and cultural resources must remain the priority.
But how much difference will the new guidance make to individual decisions? Similar government exhortation in the past has made little difference at the local level. Around planning committee tables – and in steering the planning officers who are accountable to them – councillors remain acutely aware of local electors' concerns.
Our nation is still one where people find it easier to argue against development than for it. Change is even harder in conservation areas and listed buildings, where good, place sensitive design would surely be preferable to museum-like preservation in aspic.
Up and down the land, a pro-growth mindset requires a new sense of local responsibility and accountability for the local economy. People have wrongly come to regard local authorities as mere service providers, apparently constrained by national government rules and guidance.
This is changing with the coalition government's localism agenda; new development can now bring new resources to improve local infrastructure and more income from the local tax base. But there's a long way to go before we start to elect or vote out councillors for their record in making the local economy work.
Implementing the national pro-growth agenda depends on locally elected councillors themselves adopting a pro-development mindset – that is a pro-sustainable development mindset – to make their area stronger socially and environmentally through sustainable economic growth. Those new mindsets depend on them taking more responsibility for growth, making that part of the localism agenda.
Richard Wakeford is chair of the UK Sustainable Development Research Network
This content is brought you by Guardian Professional. Join the local government network for more comment, analysis and the latest jobs direct to your inbox
