The Good, the Bad and the NIMBY

WHAT IS LOCALISM?

Tricky questions first, then. Localism is the means by which the Coalition Government seeks to shift power and decision-making from central level to local level, in certain instances to locally-formed, unelected groups. It is wide ranging in its impact, with planning only one of seven chapters in a 400-page epic of local empowerment.

To touch briefly on items outside our immediate remit:-

• Community groups, parish councils and others will be able to challenge local authorities for the running of services.

• The same groups can buy up local assets such as pubs, shops or libraries – put your local on your “most wanted” list and it can’t be sold until you’ve developed a bid and raised the cash.

• Registered voters can veto Council Tax increases which exceed government ceilings and force a local referendum.

• Local referenda can be called on any issue, and, while not binding on the Council, their outcome will be a material factor in decision-making.

• Local councils get the right to do anything that is not prohibited, all without central government interference.

• Elected mayors in twelve named cities.

• Councillors allowed to campaign on local issues without prejudicing their right to vote.

• Home Information Packs are abolished.

• Plans to give rebates to households who recycle most waste and to penalise those at the other end will not be carried through, because no Councils volunteered for the pilot study.

Lots of other good stuff as well – scrapping the Standards Board which tried to deal with corruption in local government, giving greater clarity on senior officers’ pay scales and transferring housing and regeneration powers in London from the HCA and LDA to the Mayor, but let’s get on to planning and development.

PART FIVE – PLANNING “REFORM”

Straight for the jugulars of readers of Walsingham Planning newsletters – “Planning does not give members of the public enough influence over decisions” with “power too often exercised by people not directly affected by the decisions they are making”. Localism seeks to reduce the confrontation in the planning system, apparently by reducing the role of elected representatives and qualified planning officers, but let’s not start cynical. What are the proposals?

Regional Strategies, required by law since 2004 – seems longer – are to be abolished, this in the belief that setting the targets for 3 million homes by 2020 at regional levels has slowed down progress towards hitting those targets. The mechanism for the local setting and meeting of housing targets is not part of the Bill.

Neighbourhood Planning powers will enable local communities to draw up their own neighbourhood development plans. Through the parish council or a neighbourhood forum local people can say what they want built, where they want it and what it should look like. Local communities could then actually grant full or outline planning permission to facilitate this development. The NDP will still need to be in line with national policy, with the Council’s wider strategy and there would be a local referendum to endorse it. Councils will provide technical advice and the government will provide funds for NDPs

Right to Build rules (Neighbourhood Development Orders) will give communities the right to bring forward small developments subject to a referendum without the need for planning permission and with any S106 benefits retained for use in the community.

Pre-Application Consultation will be compulsory for very large applications, giving local people an input into the submission as well as the chance to comment on the submitted scheme. “Very large” seems to be set at 200 houses or 10,000 sq m of commercial buildings.

Community Infrastructure Levy legislation was introduced by the last government and, given Tory opposition, seemed likely to be short-lived. It has, however, been reprieved and will proceed, pretty much as conceived (see WP Newsletter 2010) with the proviso that the Bill will direct more from developer contributions to those communities which actually support the development. CIL money can now be spent on maintaining infrastructure as well as providing it.

Local Plans will become more local with the power of Inspectors to rewrite parts limited and the onus on progress – reporting shifted downwards to local communities.

The Infrastructure Planning Commission, an unelected body responsible for decisions on schemes of national importance will be scrapped and those decisions will be taken by ministers who are at least democratically accountable.

Enforcement Powers will be strengthened to penalise those who deliberately seek to circumvent the due planning process or who make deliberately misleading applications. Powers of enforcement will extend beyond the normal immunity periods of ten or four years, undermining the value of Certificates of Lawful Use obtained on the basis that enforcement action is no longer available to the local authority. Furthermore applications made retrospectively to deal with a matter specified in an enforcement notice can be declined by the LPA, not refused but rejected on receipt. The power to enforce beyond the normal 4-year and 10-year rule limits applies if a magistrates court is satisfied that action or inaction on the part of a person or persons has lead to the full or partial concealment of a breach of planning control.

WHAT DOES IT ALL MEAN

The headlines have been grabbed already by those elements of the Bill which aim to devolve decision-making and plan-making to a level below that of local council or even parish council, but other elements are potentially as dramatic in their outcome, if not their intent.

Whether NDPs are produced or NDOs are set in place will depend on strength of local feeling, but the concern must be that many local communities have more interest in preventing rather than promoting development. Those communities, especially villages, for whom houses for local people are important, may well invite deals with house builders and landowners for their mutual benefit, but where does this get them if the local plan has the land allocated as countryside or green belt? Local referenda, requiring a majority verdict among those who vote rather than those eligible to vote, suggests that communities can grant themselves planning permission with only a small proportion of that community on board.

Pre-application consultation at the level indicated should already take place, so there will probably be little change unless the thresholds are lowered appreciably.

While regional planning strategy had few friends in imposing housing targets with little in the way of democratic approval, this was the devil we knew. Already there are signs of local authorities reappraising their housing targets, invariably downwards, so the devil we don’t know, namely the ability of local authorities to work together to decide on housing strategy, is as yet untested. Maybe the county council is due for a comeback, along with the structure plan.

The enforcement changes seem to be sneaking in under the radar, as the government’s stated intent to bring to book deliberate breaches of planning control seems to be about to catch villains and the unwary alike. The undermining of the established “statute of limitations” on enforcement cases, intended or not, is a major change. If Lawful Use Certificates no longer offer protection from the hand of the enforcement officer on your collar and if an honest mistake or one of omission rather than intent cannot be remedied through a retrospective application, then planning disputes are likely to increase rather than diminish.

OPPORTUNITY OR JUST MORE PROBLEMS?

The DCLG clearly see Localism as an opportunity for growth and not as the NIMBY charter that many feared it would be. Neighbourhood plans cannot provide for fewer houses than the local plan, so, if the community wants more, it can get more. Already DCLG is under pressure to bring the consultation threshold to a much lower level. The Bill does not forge any obvious working links between the local community, local businesses and developers, but the essence is that if all three can work together for a mutually beneficial goal, then Localism shows how to do it. If they can’t, then it’s business as usual.