One of the most important pieces of legislation going through the House of Commons at the moment is the Localism Bill. As an MP for a relatively rural constituency I know how fed up people are with the way planning decisions are taken in their local areas.
Residents can feel put upon by developers and councils. They can feel powerless as wind farms or supermarkets or housing developments are given the go-ahead without their approval. Above all they can feel as if they are not being listened to.
The last Government paid lip service to the whole process of consultation. Time and time again unpopular developments were rammed through against the express wishes of local people, creating a lot of anger and frustration in the process.
The Coalition government has recognised that this is no way to treat local people. Planning is an important issue and instead of acting all high and mighty, councils should be bending over backwards to ensure that residents are fully involved in the decision making process. The Localism Bill ensures that this will happen in future. It sets out a number of proposals which will give far more power to local communities, including:
- Local referendums
- Neighbourhood Planning
- Abolition of Regional Strategies.
The Bill will transform the relationship between local authorities and communities and give residents a far greater say on planning matters. Council leaders should now do the decent thing and suspend any planning consultations currently taking place in their areas until the Localism Bill is enacted.
In my constituency of Dewsbury, there are plans by Kirklees Council to build a further 28,000 homes in the borough by 2028. The Council claims that it has done this because it has been asked to by central government. Its website states that “the Local Development Framework (LDF) must be prepared in the context of national policies and planning needs identified in the Regional Spatial Strategy for Yorkshire and the Humber. The LDF must also integrate with the local Community Strategy to help deliver the long-term vision and ambition for Kirklees.”
Yet, as many people have pointed out to them, under the current government this is no longer the case. There is no obligation on the Council to implement any housing strategy. All local authorities are instead being encouraged to revisit their plans so that planning decisions can be taken in accordance with the principles set out in the Localism Bill, primarily that local communities are given a far greater say in decisions affecting the future make-up of their area.
I have called upon the Leader of Kirklees Council to suspend the consultation immediately and I believe that this should happen across the country. The rules of the game have changed with regards to planning and local authorities should respect that.
( 8 comments ) Tags: House of Commons, Localism Bill, Neighbourhood Planning, planning, referendums, Regional Strategies
Comment by Ray Turner on February 13, 2011 at 9:37 am
We’ve just had a Domono’s Pizza open a new store within sniffing distance (literally) of an independently-run Pizza outlet that has been there for a heck of a long time and has been successful in the village.
So that’s one of the things we need to stop really. Surely we want to encourage small businesses these days, so the practice of allowing changes that allow a big corporation to eventually put them out of business needs to be stopped.
We need to manage our shopping areas, have a plan for the blend of shops we want there and reject examples like this one.
Of course, if there wasn’t already a Pizza supplier in the Village Centre, fair enough. Domino’s would have been very welcome…!
Comment by Michael de Berry on February 13, 2011 at 1:26 pm
I was listening to the Politics show (Lincolnshire area) this morning.And the debate is whether we should ban residential building in the flood areas on the coast.And i heard someone from Skegness chamber of commerce,saying there was an over-reaction to the threat.Well i can tell you for sure,that there will be a flood sometime in the near future,it will be worse than 1953.Why because the base level of spring tides is likely to rise on the 1953 level by at least 1 metre(within the next century),that would give up to three metres more flood water.That means to afford the same level of protection the flood defences need to be built at least 3 metres higher.Has anybody any idea what that would cost?And even if this area was protected,it would just flood further down the coast.This is why local councils must be able to control developement in their area.
Comment by David on February 15, 2011 at 1:51 pm
This Bill will do the opposite of protecting communities from unseeming and business driven projects which impinge on the social well being of residential communities.
Locally, a residential street of 2/3 bedroom terraced housing occupied by families at present can now have one of the houses ( rented out by an absent landlord who has been given permission to build more rooms ) changed to a HMO – House of multiple occupancy- whether Students; asylum seekers, prisoners, whatever-
Until this legislation, owners of houses wishing to change the use of such a house to HMO,needed planning permission to change the house’s use.
THIS Government is removing this requirement by bringing in this Bill! Business first- residents last!
So when your quiet street becomes a Hostel of the kind mentioned- Thank your Tories.!
Comment by Michael Nye on February 15, 2011 at 4:16 pm
I was, initially heartened by what I was hearing from the coalition government, with regard to the Localism Bill. The devolvement of decision-making being more inclusive at community level appeared to be the ‘best case scenario’ that would, in the very least, involve the communities in the process other than, as has always been the case, restricting them to protest groups that are branded NIMBY’s when they object to yet another supermarket being built within their area.
However in my own community we are not seeing this practice being put into play, in fact we have observed the total opposite. Our community resides on the boundary to the east with Greater London to the north is the Colne Valley Park and the county of Buckinghamshire. Our local authority, in Berkshire, had designated this section of green belt along with other previously restored land from quarry operations, as a strategic gap between the metropolis and Berkshire, a policy designated and saved in 2008.
In 2007 we had a developer expressing a an intention to acquire the land and develop an Intermodal Freight Exchange, an almost identical request was refused 6 years previously by the Secretary of State at appeal. A great deal of consultation took place both locally and with our L.A. the position adopted under the Spatial Policy in 2008 appeared to send a clear message that development on that land, a buffer zone, would be unlikely to receive consent. Everything changed with the Secretary of States’s comments on his reversal of the Radlett decision for the North Orbital SRFI, identifying our area as one of the alternative sites better suited for the proposal, needless to say the developer submitted his application to the L.A. within weeks of this action.
What we now have to consider is that if this application be determined by our L.A. and a refusal is returned, then the developer will appeal to the same government department that had already pre-determined this site before the application to develop had been received by the L.A. Can anyone convince me that this is really how the Localism Bill is perceived to operate, or is our community just unfortunate to have been caught in a planning ‘black hole’ brought about by a change of government strategy?
Comment by Tom I Balmain on February 15, 2011 at 7:32 pm
I agree the planning game has changed but will the local community have any greater say than previous. If the Localism Bill means anything at all then planning permissions should be made by the Town Council rather than the District Authority. Most Town Councils are consultees rather the decision making body. I wonder if I am alone in this matter. I hope the Housing Minister will take note and act upon it. In my Town there has been to many houses and flats built to meet the last socialist government target rather than the needs of the local community.
Comment by Colleen on February 19, 2011 at 10:48 pm
Over 3,000 people in my neighbourhood area have so far signed a petition against a proposed, high density 1,200 housing development – which would be in addition to a 3,500 home development already agreed. Both developments are planned for a neighbourhood area that’s already grid locked with peak period traffic, which has a high flood risk and which has had several bad floods in recent years.
My council also issued an impossibly complex and jargonised questionnaire on the local development framework, this proposed the construction of a further 16,000 homes in our town by 2021 : i.e. a mere regurgitation of the Regional Plan. This would increase our population and existing grid locked traffic by 50%. Local people don’t want this crazy proposal.
When, last November, our protest group reminded the leader of our council of the requirements of Localism, he replied as follows:
“Whilst Mr Pickles has torn up regional planning until new legislation is passed by government next year, the regional plan, sadly, remains a material planning consideration.”
“I hope the government brings forward the new legislation quickly, that will really enable local people to have a say in planning communities and untie the hands of councillors from some of the crazy planning regs that currently exist.”
You are right in saying that “Council leaders should now do the decent thing and suspend any planning consultations currently taking place in their areas until the Localism Bill is enacted.” The problem is, councils like mine are ignoring the impending Localism Act and rushing through proposals for huge developments prior to the Act becoming law.
Comment by Hecky Thebsard on March 4, 2011 at 7:59 pm
Worthy stuff Simon, but until you get onto Question Time and explain to a wider audience why the current nonesense needs changing, you’ll never get any worthwhile credit for it. The greatest war is to get re-elcted and prevent The Reds from undoing all your good work.
Comment by Nicky T on March 7, 2011 at 1:50 pm
Simon, I couldnt agree more and I think I know about the development you are referring to. The problem is that communities are quite often ignorant of planning processes and we need to help them understand. There is a big problem at the moment in that many LAs and Govt Agencies have interpreted the ban on vanity publications as a ban on consultation. We simply cant rely on everyone having access to the internet – what about elderly people or deprived areas where that is not possible? So without information people are powerless. If localism is going to work we simply have to help people understand the processes as well as the proposal being put to them. They need to learn about the powers they do not or not have and manage expectations carefully. Many planning and engineering folk do not even understand the new IPC process – these are people in the profession so how can we expect local people to know?! we need to lift the ban on consultation (other than web) and show people how they can get involved. I recently say a Lib Dem policy manifesto up here in Calderdale where worryingly they were going to be the conduit for this decision making and actually the policy omits an important decision maker – the public !!! People can and do make good and pragmatic decisions if they know what they are making a decision about and how they can influence it. We really need to start getting clearer with LAs about what they can and cant cancel to protect jobs.