Localism bill could create policy vacuum, experts warn

THE new Localism Bill could lead to a vacuum in planning policy if the proposed neighbourhood forums do not form coherent plans for their area, a planning expert has warned.

The bill is being introduced in a bid to encourage local parish councils and other community groups to take control of planning decisions in their local areas, but GVA ‘s Manchester-based planning & regeneration director, Stephen Bell, said the bill was “full of holes” – the chief one being an presumption that people will spend the time and resources to set up neighbourhood forums.

Speaking at a debate on the bill chaired by David Manley of barristers’ set Kings Chambers, Bell said: “There’s an assumption that communities will want to get involved in planning which seems naive.”

He argued that the underlying objectives of the government’s localism agenda were sound, but that it could lead to a rise in Nimby-ism or inertia which would meant that ‘planning by appeal’ would become the only route forwards for developers in many areas.

The government has attempted to overcome this by introducing incentives such as a “community infrastructure levy” to be spent in local areas or a New Homes Bonus to be paid to local authorities which allow new homes to be built within their areas.

Trafford Council chief executive Matt Colledge said that he supported the bill’s principles, arguing that it would weaken the “stranglehold” of centralised policymaking in planning.

He also said that the New Homes Bonus was “an attractive tool to encourage new development”
.
However, he conceded that a failure to ringfence the New Homes Bonus could lead to any bonus being used to fund shortfalls in council budgets rather than being ploughed back into redevelopment.

“The pressure on organisations will be to use it to fund services.”

Manley said there was a debate as to whether the bill would deliver the growth in housing numbers needed if the country was to meet its housing tarted or whether it would simply become a “Nimby’s charter”.

Grant Anderson, head of planning and environment of Addleshaw Goddard in Manchester, said that the last major changes made to the planning regime took place seven years ago and still hadn’t properly bedded in. He feared that it could take another seven years for changes being proposed by the current government to be properly implemented.

“It seems certain that change will lead to more uncertainty, which is great for lawyers and consultants but not for developers.”

Anderson also argued that the biggest problem currently faced by the planners was not the system itself but a lack of resources by local authority planners when dealing with applications – a view echoed by other panel members.