The Localism Bill Committee - Essay Example

?Planning Provisions of the Coalition Government’s Localism Bill A Report to the Localism Bill Committee Summary The Localism Bill sets out to transform the procedure for planning permission by transferring authority to neighbourhoods and away from regional authorities. In other words, the Localism Bill seeks to ensure that the planning process is commandeered by the largest group of stakeholders: the local population. The popular belief is that the planning process as it is currently constituted is not consistent with the reality of the lives of local populations and fails to ensure enduring influences on significant matters of concern such as housing and the environment. The fact is, a planning process determines who can construct and what they can construct as well as how and where that construction can be conducted. This report will identify the main planning contents of the Localism Bill, provide an analysis of the Bill’s impact on the chief stakeholders impacted by the proposed planning reforms and provide an appraisal of the winners and losers should the Bill become law. Finally, this report having identified the key planning contents of the Bill, stakeholder interests and winners and losers, a list of recommendations for achieving the Bill’s purpose will be provided. A. The Proposed Planning Procedures under the Localism Bill The Department for Communities and Local Government reports that the planning provisions of the Localism Bill is designed to “make the planning system clearer, more democratic, and more effective”.1 The first step in that direction is the abrogation of regional focus which are currently strategized to identify parts of England and Wales that require new development. This includes targeting specific areas which have been identified by the central government. Local communities and their populations have very little input with respect to these strategies. The government has determined that regional strategies is not only “bureaucratic”, but also “undemocratic”.2 Part 5 of the Localism Bill 2010 will therefore set out to abrogate regional strategies.3 Part 5 of the Localism Bill also intends to address the current planning framework’s instructive and dictator approach by introducing neighbourhood planning.4 In other words, rather than being told by the Government what should be built and where and “how they should look,” the Localism Bill will confer upon communities the right to compose its own “neighbourhood development plan”.5 Local populations are at liberty to vote by virtue of referendum on a neighbourhood development plan if it is consistent with the country’s policy for planning and the “strategic vision for the wider area by the local authority and with other legal requirements”.6 This immediately invites questions as to whether local populations are qualified to make this kind of determination. Should the majority choose a neighbourhood development plan that is inconsistent with the country’s policy, the law, or the local authority’s vision for the wider area, the neighbourhood is ultimately left with no neighbourhood plan and will have to plan and vote all over again. A lot of time can be wasted this way and will defeat the purpose of the planning provisions under the Localism Bill relative to saving time in the planning process. Although the Localism Bill requires that local planning official lend technical support to neighbourhoods in planning their neighbourhood’s development, there is no guarantee that this support will be accepted or understood. In addition, individual minds may be made up and no amount of advice and support will change those minds. The community’s right to build is also a novel idea and will only provide for neighbourhood development. Under Part 5 of the Localism Bill, individual groups will have the opportunity to put forth smaller development projects. These projects can include businesses, shops and dwelling houses. All benefits deriving from these projects will remain within the community.7 Part 5 of the Localism Bill 2010 also provides that large planning applicants consult with communities prior to making the application. Local populations will therefore have the opportunity to have input relative to the altering or modifying the project.8 Part 5 of the Localism Bill also provides for a duty to cooperate. The duty to cooperate permits local authorities from neighbouring communities to come together and plan those matters that impact their populations as group.9 This would include matters concerning the environment, public transportation or parks.10 This part of the Localism Bill 2010 is realistic as a voting process can only increase the risk of divided neighbourhoods. One neighbourhood may want to have a specific project while another neighbourhood may not. Therefore the will of one neighbourhood could be imposed on another. It therefore makes sense for neighbouring authorities to come together and determine what is in the best interests of all the neighbourhoods involved or impacted by the project. The way that infrastructure projects of national importance are planned will also be changed by the Localism Bill 2010. These projects will not be left to local communities and will typically include projects like nationally connected railways and utility stations. This planning is left to the Infrastructure Planning Commission under the current planning framework. However the commission is “is not directly accountable to the public”.11 The Localism Bill 2010 proposes to have these nationally significant projects determined by ministers who are dully elected by the public and therefore accountable to the public.12 The Infrastructure Planning Commission will be abolished under the Localism Bill 2010.13 B. Stakeholder Analysis The fact is, a planning process determines who can construct and what they can construct as well as how and where that construction can be conducted. In this regard, construction includes schools, hospitals, roads, railways, utility stations, pipes for water, reservoirs, homes, offices and any number of buildings or construction undertakings that forms part of a neighbourhood’s infrastructure. No one doubts that decisions have to be made to ensure that construction is such that it corresponds to the development of the economy and at the same time sustains the environment and the community. It therefore follows that the main stakeholders are local populations. Currently, planning permission and the planning process is flawed in that it does not confer upon the major stakeholder sufficient input relative to planning permission despite the fact that planning and its outcome impacts them in very personal and interpersonal ways. Under the current planning framework, planning permission is conferred upon authorities and officials who will not be directly impacted by the planning decision. Stakeholders are therefore left with the impression that planning decisions are “forced” upon them.14 As stakeholders, local populations will no longer be bound by regional strategies. Instead they can directly participate in neighbourhood development plans. Local populations can influence where and what is constructed in their neighbourhoods. This appears to be entirely fair, since they are in the best position to determine which parts of their neighbourhood is more conducive to a specific building or construction project. Stakeholders however, can vary in terms of what they value and what they expect for their neighbourhoods. There is likely to always be some measure of division among the community. The result is likely to be indecision and/or ill-informed decisions. Ultimately, the problem with neighbourhood stakeholders is that the majority may not always be right. It is also true that the majority is not always practical. Stakeholders’ values may not be consistent with what is beneficial to the neighbourhood in the long term. Moreover, stakeholder values are fickle and always changing. C. Winners and Losers Permitting stakeholders’ participating in neighbourhood development planning is a novel idea. In this regard, local populations are the winners to the extent that they have a voice in the manner in which their neighbourhoods are designed. However, they are also losers when one considers that the local population’s voice may not come from a place entirely committed to economic and sustainable development. More likely than not, members of the local community will have emotional attachments to specific areas of their neighbourhoods and will not make decisions that are fully thought out from a practical and economic perspective. The main concern is that, local populations will not typically consider the long-term economic consequences of a specific project. The authority to veto a major project is perhaps the most problematic. Local populations may not look to the future economic prospects and may be more inclined toward, the invasion of their neighbourhoods by manufacturers or some other corporate giant. Ultimately, they are more unlikely to look beyond the outcome of introducing large projects to their neighbourhoods. In this regard, both the neighbourhood’s economic development, the economic development of large project providers and the local population are also losers. Providing local communities with the authority to designate where building and construction projects can take place also harms the local community. By designating a place for building and construction projects, it is very likely that the project provider may simply opt out of the project altogether. If this takes place often enough, neighbour development planning would be slow if at all. Ultimately, the only victory that local populations can claim is a moral one. Local populations are only winners in that they will have a unique opportunity to determine what is built or constructed in their neighbourhoods and where. The main concern is whether or not local communities have the expertise to properly weigh and determine what and where construction and building projects can take place in their neighbourhoods for the common good of the community in the long term. The country could very well emerge as the loser. We may have some neighbourhoods more willing to permit project providers to determine where and what they can construct in their neighbourhoods. At the same time, there will be neighbourhoods that are very conservative and dictatorial. The natural consequence is that England and Wales may very likely see over-development in some neighbourhoods and under-development in other neighbourhoods. In this regard, some neighbourhoods will be winners while others will be losers. D. Recommendations In order to avoid inconsistent planning outcomes within and across neighbourhoods, full community participation should be changed so that emotional and ill-informed voting does not ultimately determine what and where construction and building projects should take place. A panel of experts made up of economists, environmentalists and select members of the neighbourhood community should be selected to have a representative voice for specific neighbourhood development planning. The selection process should be conducted by virtue of neighbourhood voting. The neighbourhood’s adult population should be permitted to elect these experts to serve as their neighbourhood planning committee. This way the neighbourhood’s population will be a part of a democratic process by ensuring that they have a productive representative voice in the neighbourhood planning process rather than a disruptive representative voice. Selecting a panel will also dispense with the need to conduct neighbour voting each time a project is introduced. Conducting neighbourhood elections will certainly involve a lot of time and expenses that can be curtailed by implementing a panel that serves for a fixed period. This panel will simply take a vote and the matter will be resolved once and for all. Similarly, the panel should be responsible for developing a neighbour plan. In this regard, the neighbourhood plan would take into account the laws, the wider benefits of the entire area, all complex issues that should be properly researched and debated. The creation of a panel is the best way forward. While it may not please all members of the community, majority rule never does. The panel will serve as a mediator between the neighbourhood’s local population and the practical issues for the greater good of the community. A panel would be in a better position to weigh the advantages and disadvantages of a specific project or the neighbourhood development plan than a collective community of diverse individuals with different values and expectations. A panel can best represent the greater good of the entire community and the wider area. For the sake of consistency, stakeholders should always select a smaller number to represent their voices in decisions that impact a neighbourhood’s economic development and the environment. When stakeholders are comprised of a large community with diverse views and values, there will always be those who feel left out or ignored. The only way to minimize this outcome is to have all stakeholders select a panel to represent the wider community’s interests. This way, everyone has a vote, although indirectly. However, this is no different from general elections where voters choose their representatives to conduct the country’s affairs on their behalf. It has worked for centuries and there is no reason to think that it would not work in the sustainable development of one’s neighbourhood. The panel of each neighbourhood should also work in consultation with duly elected ministers when planning nationally significant infrastructure projects. Similarly, the panel of each neighbourhood should also work with the neighbouring local authorities under the duty to cooperate. By taking this approach, local populations will have a voice in the same manner that they have a voice in neighbourhood development planning. Bibliography Communities and Local Government, ‘A Plain English Guide to the Localism Bill’ (January 2011), Department for Communities and Local Government, 1-18. Localism Bill 2010. Localism Bill: Planning and Housing Bill 123 of 2010-11, Research Paper 11/03 (11 January 2011) House of Commons Library, 1-92. Read More