How realistic is the localism agenda?

So now that the frenzy around the establishment of our first coalition government in 70 years has settled down to be replaced with the practicalities of running the nation, what have we learned about the likely future direction of planning over the next five years?

The appointment of Eric Pickles as Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government was accompanied by a flurry of popularist statements regarding residential development, which gave the impression that the new Secretary of State was being briefed by the editor of the Daily Mail rather than his own departmental advisors. So far less has been heard about the coalition’s intended approach in other areas.

The basic premise of the Conservatives approach is that the previous government’s centralised and bureaucratic system is broken and needs to be replaced by one more firmly rooted in greater civic engagement and collaborative democracy at the local level. This is a development of David Cameron’s ‘Big Society’ concept, which envisages all individuals taking an active part in their communities.

While the Lib Dem’s manifesto generally was thin on content (certainly in respect of planning and development policies), it is clear that the underlying philosophy of both parties points to a greater emphasis on local determination as opposed to the heavily centralist approach that we have become used to since the election of the Blair Government in 1997.

Indeed, as was noted by Liz Pearce, chief executive of the British Property Federation, prior to the election: “There is much to be commended in the Lib Dems’ manifesto, even if much of the content around planning seems to have been lifted directly from the Conservative’s planning green paper”.

We have already seen the first steps toward dismantling of regional planning, but in terms of further detail we need to await the Decentralisation and Localism Bill (DLB) heralded in the Queens Speech. This will be introduced around the end of this year, with the aim of becoming law sometime in 2011. The Conservative party manifesto and the Conservative ‘Open Source Planning’ green paper issued in the run up to the general election do however give an indication of what to expect.

Proposals include:
- Amend the use classes order to permit the use of land and buildings for any purpose allowed in the local plan.
- Limit the scope of appeals to cases where there is claimed to have been an abuse of power or failure to apply the local plan. Inspectors will not be given the remit to amend Local Plans if they have been arrived at by fair and proper process. The Lib Dems also wish to introduce third party appeals. This was also originally part of the Conservative programme but was dropped in the manifesto.

- Local plans are to be ‘bottom up’ derived from the aspirations of the local population.
- Introduce a ‘presumption in favour of sustainable development’, provided a tariff is also paid.
- Ensure that ‘significant local projects’ are designed through a collaborative process involving the neighbourhood.
- A programme of ‘fast track’ consents where agreement is reached with neighbours. This can involve the making of payments to offset development impacts – in essence buying off objections.

A number of these proposals have already raised in principle and detailed procedural concerns with the development industry who interestingly, in the context of the green paper, do not seem to be accorded a specific role in the new Conservative approach to policy formulation.

There is, for example, an inevitable conflict between the concept of localism and the extension of permitted development rights. This will only work if the types of permitted development are tightly prescribed with Local Plans; in essence, becoming detailed zoning plans drawn up alongside the local community. A similar mechanism is currently available in the form of Local Development Orders and tacit support for the extension of this process was given by the Chancellor in his budget speech. To date however, such orders have only come forward in localities less sensitive to conflicting interests. Certainly the Chancellor perceives these as assisting economic development and their use is likely to be limited to areas of generally homogenous activity, such as major employment areas.

In terms of most forms of development, a statement by junior planning minister Bob Neill to The National Planning Forum reaffirmed the government’s intentions for local communities to take the initiative in deciding what types of development should come forward in their area rather than being asked to choose between a limited number of top-down options. Such an approach, of course, presupposes a degree of engagement on the part of the wider local community in the process which has largely been lacking in the past. This brings the inevitable danger that a vociferous, organised and sophisticated minority could exert undue influence.

This is certainly something I myself have witnessed on numerous occasions in my career and the existence of a ‘top-down’ national policy framework has on occasions served to act as a necessary balancing factor in decision making. If localism is not to be hijacked by the most strident voices in a community, new ways of engagement need to be found which do not discourage the involvement of the silent majority. Failure to do this will rapidly undermine the objectives of localism.

The Government’s own proposals for carbon reduction and transport infrastructure would also seem to introduce significant potential conflicts with the concept of localism and run the risk of bringing the administration into direct conflict with its own philosophy.

Few people welcome nationally significant developments on their own doorstep, whether it be high speed rail links or major energy generating infrastructure. While the government has proposed the demise of the recently established Infrastructure Planning Commission, set up to deal with such schemes, this is intended to be replaced by The Major Infrastructure Unit; in essence the same type of body, but where the final decision will be made by the Secretary of State. I suspect that this is one area where localism will rapidly be overruled by the ‘national interest’.

A further undercurrent to the green paper is the concept of tariffs and rewards for communities which accept development. Detail on this is presently thin, but it does raise the prospect of government incentives or perhaps even payments from developers to secure support for development. The current S.106 rules on contributions and the formative legislation on the Community Infrastructure Levy set clearly defined limits to the nature of such payments. The green paper proposals appear more fluid however and this is likely to be an aspect that will attract close scrutiny once the DLB emerges.

It is clear that in the run up to and during consultation on the DLB, the development industry will need to present a common and active position in seeking to influence the detail of legislation if future difficulties are to be avoided.

Thereafter, all development proposals will need to be drawn up to reflect the need to win public support from the outset. This will increase the importance of community consultation and involvement, with development budgets allowing both for the costs of this work but also the potential need to ‘buy off’ objectors with an inevitable effect on the bottom line.