Drivers of Localism in England - Essay Example

? Housing Development {Housing Study} By of [Word Count] Introduction It is quite evident that life in rural England could be very desirable and interesting. However, to live in England’s rural areas has become quite unaffordable for the poor. In fact, according to the Commission for Rural Communities (CRC), the cost of a house in rural England surpasses the income of most medium- and low-income earners by far, so they can hardly afford houses in the rural areas. This shortage of housing has brought fears that some areas are preserves of the rich. As a matter of fact, only the rich and the elderly can afford living in some communities in England. Low-income earners, more so the youth, are completely priced out when it comes to buying a house in some communities. Unfortunately, the few interventions that were applied to address the issue of house affordability in some communities in England have always been inefficient. According to one Andrew Clark, the head of policy at the National Farmers Union, a number of areas resist any attempts to ease the housing affordability problems. Due to these resistances, it has become rather difficult to propose and implement policies and reforms that would make housing affordable and sustainable (National Housing Federation, 2012). These resistance problems are particularly rampant in beautiful and scenic areas. Therefore, to outline principles and measures to promote housing, the government has devised a localism agenda in addition to the National Planning Policy Framework. These measures sought to overcome the hindrances to affordable housing supply in rural areas and offer incentives such as New Homes Bonus and an infrastructure levy. While the New Homes Bonus involves the government matching the local authority’s revenue, the infrastructure levy raises funds from developers to pay for community essentials (Haughton and Allmendinger, 2012). Nonetheless, others worry that localism might just be another conservative tool or agenda instead of serving its intended purpose of creating affordable housing for all. This paper explores localism and its implications on housing and planning in England, asserting that housing problems in England will worsen under localism. Drivers of Localism in England The British coalition government has established several programs targeting different spheres of public life. One such sector targeted by these far-reaching reforms is housing. In fact, the planning of housing in England is undergoing some reformation, with the spatial regional housing and planning strategies being replaced by a localism approach, which focuses on community-centered housing planning and development. Although some housing stakeholders are of the opinion that localism will result in more opportunities and more houses than the earlier regional-target approach, others tend to disagree, asserting that localism will not improve the situation (South West Observatory, 2012). Still, some sections of the public wonder what localism is and what its possible impacts on housing and planning are. To understand the implications and effects of localism on housing planning, it is important that the drivers behind it and evidence that supports its effectiveness are understood. In England, localism is an approach not only to housing and planning but also to other projects and programmes by the coalition government. In all programmes targeted by the localism policy, the objective is to promote the involvement of local communities rather than the involvement of the central government. Specifically, localism seeks the collaboration and participation of local communities in the planning and building of houses. Thus, localism encourages local communities not only to identify their problems and needs but also to prioritize them (South West Observatory, 2012). Due to this local involvement in problem identification, these communities have a hand in defining and designing what the services offered to them should look like. Furthermore, local communities have a hand in the delivery of the housing and planning services to them. The government thus came to the conclusion that to enable local communities to shape the type and delivery of housing and planning decisions on social services, power, funding and decision-making had to be devolved to the lowest level possible (Department for Communities and Local Government, 2011). One core advantage of localism in housing planning is that it promotes active participation and democracy in the sector. Those supporting localism believe it is likely to address communities’ housing and planning needs more effectively if various initiatives in these communities can be considered to be serious. For example, the initiative to scrap the previously used Regional Spatial Strategies would go a long way in addressing specific communal housing needs. Unlike the regional-target strategies for building houses, localism is expected to bring out the best in people, to make them realize it is their duty to cooperate and participate across neighborhoods and local authorities to improve housing development. The second important initiative in localism is the introduction of a programme referred to as the New Homes Bonus; it offers financial motivation to local agencies and authorities to promote housing development. Third, localism seeks to revamp the planning system and introduce neighborhood plans. In this regard, housing and other types of developers are required to consult local communities before they submit any big planning applications (South West Observatory, 2012). Localism also seeks to strengthen the role of enforcement in housing and planning at the local level. The fourth initiative of the localism strategies is social housing reform, which seeks to empower private landlords so that they can allow tenancies for fixed terms if they wish. Fifth, localism empowers local authorities to regulate those admitted to the waiting list for social housing within given localities. Localism could also improve housing and planning due to its initiatives to reform homelessness legislation so that local authorities and agencies may execute their mandate to the people even in the private rented sector (New Local Government Network, 2011). These reforms of homelessness legislation will also be followed by social housing regulation reforms so that local communities, authorities and tenants are held more accountable for the housing and planning performance. Furthermore, tenants will be given more powers to scrutinize their landlords’ performance. There is also an expected national home swap as tenants will be granted greater mobility across the social housing segment. The other reform initiative under localism involves the empowering of local authorities to have greater control of their finances at the Council Housing Finance. In addition, local communities will be granted more powers such as holding referendums in local authorities if circumstances warrant that, and the right to build and take part in small developments without obtaining planning permission. Under localism, local communities have the right to bid for both public and private assets, especially those with community values that come up for sale. The benefits of the localism will only assured and legal if the policy is based on law, due to which the Localism Act was created. The act, which drives the government’s localism policy, received royal assent in November 2011. However, its major provisions became effective in April 2012. Among the key provisions of the Localism Act are the introduction of fixed term tenancies, local authority self-financing, and new arrangements for regulation (Local Government Association, 2012). That localism, through the Localism Act, will yield visible changes by way of more housing, and better planning was pegged on its emphasis on granting greater flexibility to local agencies, authorities, housing providers and local communities to shape their way of life. Ineffectiveness of Localism in Housing and Planning In spite of the widespread support for localism and the Localism Act, there is skepticism that local communities, agencies and authorities may lack the resources required to provide proper and adequate housing. This worry particularly seems inevitable given the public sector spending cuts and the cuts to voluntary- and community sector-delivered services. In fact, it is true that local communities must have not only the resources but also the capacities and knowledge to effectively take charge of decision-making and housing planning. Unfortunately, the capacities of local communities and housing developers in this regard are not well established. Those opposed to localism also assert that increased influence and powers to local communities and authorities could just change into power struggles, political influences and greed for specific vocal leaders and residents, preventing or jeopardizing the building of the much needed homes. In addition to these challenges, there are concerns that the removal of the regional spatial strategies might result in some local agencies and authorities reducing development targets in their areas (Blackbourn, 2007). There is also the concern that new homes bonuses might not be enough to change local authorities’ and communities’ perception of housing and development. Nonetheless, those opposed to localism opine that with the right framework developed by housing professionals, advice workers, tenants, councilors and council staff among other stakeholders, localism could actually deliver houses that satisfy peoples’ values, needs, and aspirations. What cannot be refuted about localism in housing and planning is that it is a policy that emphasizes the need to have more people participating and having their opinions being heard and considered on how communities are run. In fact, guides have been designed and published to assist local authorities, councilors, community groups, public service officers and private citizens to ensure they have a say in the management of their affairs (Stookes and Thomas, 2012). The Localism Act and localism in general were thus instrumental in shifting housing and development planning from the central government to councils and communities, changing the decade-old practice of concentrating power and decision-making with the central government. Localism Is Worsening Housing Situation If recent reports are anything to go by, it is apparent that localism is making the housing situation in England worse. First, the destruction of the regional planning policy renders housing planning and development exposed to cuts and opposition. Latest reports indicate that planning permissions for new houses are at the lowest level, spreading fears that Britain’s housing shortage is expected to worsen in a few years due to "nimbyism" and local authorities’ cuts on housing targets (Kollewe, 2011). Since the coalition government scrapped the regional regime planning and handed decision-making powers to local authorities, half of England's 291 local councils have announced that they plan to stick to their housing targets. However, about 12% intend to cut their housing targets and a meager 2% intend to increase their targets (Kollewe, 2011). On the other hand, most of the councils that have not confirmed their housing plans indicate that they will be changing them. However, the trend of councils cutting down on their housing targets is expected to stay the same, implying that about 31,400 homes will be lost in England every year (Kollewe, 2011). Making the situation worse is nimbyism; people will probably oppose the building of houses in certain areas simply because localism empowers them to contribute to housing planning and decision-making. In fact, the most vocal and resistant people in a community are the older ones, who have less housing needs compared to the first-time buyers, who tend to be less vocal. Before the introduction of localism, Britain had the lowest number of housing vacancies in the EU, standing at 3% in 2007, with the number of homes built falling below the demand by a big margin (Kollewe, 2011). There is also the likelihood of a serious housing shortage if local authorities are not interested in the growth and development of the housing sector in their communities. Thus, there should be established certain mechanisms by which the central government may come in through the Planning Inspectorate to reign in on such local councils. Otherwise, the envisaged housing crisis will only worsen. In fact, this crisis will particularly hit the building of affordable homes in rural England since deprived areas will find it quite hard to construct viable houses. What is more, with the all important Housing Corporation's grants to housing developers withdrawn, the resources at the disposal of these developers, mainly revenues generated from housing associations, would not even cover the construction and professional costs for building affordable housing in many localities (Kollewe, 2011). The Financial Incentives As expected, many communities have continued to resist large scale housing units being built in their localities, prompting the Department of Communities and Local Government (DCLG) to device monitory incentives to local authorities that favor housing and other types of development. These financial incentives promised by localism in housing and planning such as the New Houses Bonus and the Growing Places Fund also proved rather inefficient in encouraging local councils to fast-track housing planning applications. As in the past, implementing a legitimate local consultation on a development proposal still takes months and years. The Department of Communities and Local Government have subsequently shown signs of frustration as they need more houses constructed, while local councils and local communities shun large-scale building of houses in their areas. In fact, the coalition government is currently planning a follow up to the localism policy, which was regrettably initiated to rejuvenate the housing industry and market in England (Pickles, 2010). Hopefully, these new follow up strategies will be a sufficient incentive to prompt housing developers to start building again. These strategies will see the government underwriting bonds issued by housing associations to allow these associations to borrow cheaply while relying on the government’s credit ratings. In effect, these strategies will reduce the commitment of direct housing expenditure by the government. Also to be lifted in the follow up strategy is the requirement that housing developers construct a given percentage of social housing as a pre-requisite for securing a planning permission (Pickles, 2010). In fact, this requirement has been exploited by local councils as they demand that housing developers spend their own money to build affordable housing, not taxpayers’ money. This requirement has been cited as the reason housing developers are holding up the development. Generally, by eliminating such requirements and usurping the powers of the local councils in deciding social and private housing issues at the grassroots, the central government could reschedule and re-nationalize the provision of social and private housing. In other words, the Localism Act and localism notwithstanding, pressure should be applied so that local councils and communities accept housing and other development agendas to meet local and national housing needs. The way forward to solving the housing crisis in Britain is thus the initiation of large-scale housing programme for public, social and private housing. Even if it means overruling local decisions and removing the decision-making powers granted to local communities and councils, the government should not hesitate if better and more extensive housing for social and economic growth is to be realized. In fact, the powers granted to communities and councils are so prone to local political intrigues, influences, differences and rhetoric that no substantial developments will be realized on the basis of localism in the end (Pickles, 2010). Ideas that policymakers and other think tanks may propose for local communities may eventually be left on shelves to gather dust, as vested interests play a central role at the expense of development. The government should, therefore, own up and admit that localism will not serve the interests of the public and the government as it is largely unworkable and has only lowered peoples’ expectations of its principles and objectives. Similarly, some stakeholders, more so councils and developers, claim that localism is nothing new and the current localism drive only offers several avenues by which new opportunities for communities to be involved in affordable housing could be exploited. However, these stakeholders opine that more houses could still be affordable if developers and housing associations are allowed to take the lead. Though such people do not outright oppose localism in housing and planning, they recommend several strategies by which social housing professionals and other stakeholders may promote and manage affordable rural housing development. First, housing developers and professionals should work closely with local councils and communities and attach to the local peoples’ housing needs the priority they deserve (Pickles, 2010). Second, housing developers and landlords should ensure houses are affordable not only today but also in the future. Third, houses should be sensitively designed and be of the quality and features that meet environmental standards. Fifth, housing professionals should respond positively to the local community. Followed by the publication of an action plan on how the authorities intend to meet the housing needs, councils should have complete understanding of the housing needs in each jurisdiction to offer more affordable houses (Pickles, 2010). Conclusion The rate at which new buildings are constructed in Britain is currently at its lowest level in the last half of this century. This low rate of new housing units built in Britain prompted the coalition government to enact laws and implement policies that seek to promote the building of not only affordable but also sustainable housing units. Thus, the Localism Act and localism policies have been established in Britain to bring the looming housing crisis under control. The situation is particularly made worse by the bleak forecast for housing completion in Britain. Although the Localism Act received the royal assent in November 2011, the real test still awaits it, as housing and planning stakeholders are yet to experience its effects and implications on housing affordability. Localism eliminated the hitherto regional target policy of housing in Britain, replacing it with principles that support the involvement of local authorities and communities in housing planning. Although some stakeholders support localism and believe it will result in a better and more affordable housing, others assert that localism will worsen the housing crisis in England, more so in rural England, where currently only affluent people can afford quality houses. Furthermore, nimbyism, the tendency of people to oppose the location of structure in specific areas, will definitely affect housing construction in some areas. Vocal and influential people may prevent the construction of the affordable houses much needed by the less vocal in a given community. Furthermore, the local councils under whose mandate housing planning and development has been placed have shown a tendency to reduce their housing targets in recent times. This is a clear indication of the effects of the council’s cuts on housing in local communities. Thus, though it empowers local councils and local communities to have a say in the provision of social services to them, in the end localism will increase the housing shortage and worsen the affordability crisis in Britain. Reference list Blackbourn, D., 2007. Localism, landscape and the ambiguities of place: German-speaking central Europe, 1860-1930 (German and European Studies). 1st ed. University of Toronto Press: Scholarly Publishing Division. Department for Communities and Local Government, 2011. A plain English guide to the Localism Act – update. London: Department for Communities and Local Government. Haughton, G. and Allmendinger, P., 2012. Spatial planning and the new localism. 1st ed. Routledge. Kollewe, J., 2011. Localism is making housing shortage worse, warns new report. The Guardian, [online] 24 June. Available at: http://www.guardian.co.uk/society/2011/jun/24/localism-making-housing-shortage-worse [Accessed 19 August 2012]. Local Government Association, 2012. Localism Act. [online] Available at: http://www.local.gov.uk/localism-act [Accessed 19 August 2012]. National Housing Federation, 2012. Localism Act 2011: housing and planning: a guide for housing associations. London: National Housing Federation. New Local Government Network, 2011. Labour and localism: An NLGN series of party pamphlets. New Local Government Network. Pickles, E., 2010. Localism Act 2011. [online] Available at: http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2011/20/section/1/enacted [Accessed 19 August 2012]. South West Observatory, 2012. Localism (SWO Housing and Planning Module). Available at: http://housing-planning.swo.org.uk/localism/ [Accessed 19 August 2012]. Stookes, P. and Thomas, P., 2012. Planning and the localism act 2011. Law Society Publishing. Read More