The Big Society and Localism: My thoughts

The government is widely endorsing the Big Society and the localism agenda as key principles to drive their policies forward. I admire many aspects of this but cannot help thinking that it is very disjointed and the relationship to place has been woefully underestimated. I argue that the government has so far been missing some of the point, is not radical like it proclaims and has been far too unilateral with geography in the projects that support localism. Ultimately I state that localism and schemes initiated to deliver it have potential to leave people out spatially and that this has a far more detrimental impact on our society and planning, outweighing the importance of putting people at the heart of decisions that localism aims to meet.

 

What do I read localism to be?

It was true to form that I first became aware of localism upon the release of the Conservative Party’s green paper ‘open source planning’ but only began to take it more seriously when the coalition government was elected. Localism is conveyed as a radical change to sideswipe the centralised state and provide less barriers to ‘the people’, who in the government’s mind should be at the forefront of decision making. I read for localism to be one of the more powerful tools in exhibiting the government’s Big Society agenda, again a pinnacle of Conservative policy prior to the election as a coalition in May 2010. By encouraging civic pride and responsibility, it is envisaged that local people will feel empowered to make change in their areas.

My initial perceptions

I am quite an unusual character in that I am quite unforgiving and hostile to this government’s attitudes to the built environment and always have been. This is despite supporting some of their work in other sectors and initiatives. I am a strong proponent of regional planning and have been sad to see it lost without a chance to let it breathe. There has been widespread criticism of that particular framework but it was only implemented for a small number of years as part of sectors that are well known for a rhetoric of slow progress (see Barker and Killian Pretty, among others). So how can it be commented on with such distaste? It comes as little surprise that I am finding localism rather difficult to interpret, but am a personality that is open to reconstruction on this matter.

I show a somewhat mixed reaction, but must stress that not all of it is negative. It is all too easy to start pinpointing the opposing argument; exhibiting a bullish personality and a vanguard of emotion. But even with a subject such as localism I cannot bring myself to respond in this way. The majority of  government policy does actually have meaningful elements to it, reflecting the aspirations of their creator.  I have tried to underpin those values instead of taking the lazy route towards nitpicking.

Unease but hope

At the moment there is more unease to be displayed than joy to endorse localism, but this is because I am holding back, wanting to (and willing to) understand more about the subject and its objectives. I feel that localism has been a mass of buzzwords launched too early in advance before government has convened most of the substance together, and that is worrying. Indeed most of the uncertainty does not stem from the continual pattern of frontloading that is taking place that others might transpire to state as their concern, such as the rapid but thwarted abolishment of the regional tier and frontloading of local government spending reductions. I admire cutting to the chase, being specific and going ahead with what you stated you would do. But in order to represent true grit and determination, there needs to be some dialogue of what happens, how are conflicts going to be mitigated and a transparent framework to evaluate success. With the localism agenda I see little thought on this, and a constant drizzle of policy introductions. While I would like concrete, all I see is blancmange – that is at least until we have a proper breakdown of localism’s powers, which are slowly creeping in. I see the ideas born out of localism and the big society to have a poor spatial understanding, with policies that are too simplified. For example the New Homes Bonus, intended to incentivise house building in areas of demand, will work extremely well in the South East and other areas with housing pressures. But this will be woeful in places with negative take up, causing a funding shortfall for local authorities who will receive little merit from the Bonus. I would endorse that if Localism is to provide these kinds of measures, there needs to be multiple versions to specify not just who but where will benefit from them.

Radical? Not quite!

 I find localism to be less radical than previously thought – take the whole concept of ‘decentralisation’ for example. Under the new localism based principles local communities would have obligatory powers to produce their own neighbourhood development plan, but the housing numbers still have to either match or be higher than any previously proposed under regional planning or the local plan. We also have environmental directives to consider from Brussels, which we have little enforcement of. Therefore I would argue that true ‘pure’ localism cannot be achieved, instead an uneven patchwork quilt of civic responsibility will be encouraged across the country.

Civic responsibility is something I find a virtue here, albeit with caution

Civic responsibility is a fundamental feature of society that has in part been lost. I treasure attempts to bring some of this back into the wider rhetoric on the street and at the local level. However, the reality put into practice is that our lifestyles do not always arrange well to being responsible, supporting others and working for nothing. It is something I personally advocate, but know many personalities who would not work with the concept. Having said that, I can imagine that the element to embrace civic responsibility will work well in certain places, but will be severely dictated by geography. Places including rural areas that still have community spirit and diverse urban neighbourhoods such as student areas with higher levels of volunteering rates could benefit from localism principles and the big society. But in places that are comparatively deprived and facing similar budget reductions, or rural areas that have lost their soul to poor attitudes and wrong decisions, localism is bound to be a struggle. The big society motive may be better in these areas to rally people together as part of a wider social welfare remit, but it will be particularly weak when applied to planning. Big society and localism will no doubt fuel the power relations of whoever has the greatest stake, and the greatest influence on development proposals. With the advent of neighbourhood plans, this is likely to get larger as the prospect of developer funded plans may become a reality.

But there surely will be a  rise of the third sector even during times of restraint and potential austerity

Overall, I see much potential for the third sector, despite their own financial pressures brought on by questionable times, to experience a rise of take up or interest in their work from local people as a result of localism. This is inevitable, no matter what the variety of opinion is on the matter, and is accentuated if protest goes unheeded.  If the government acts on its ideologies and mobilised campaigns to protect the built environment fail, then in certain places people will have no choice but to join such organisations to try and make their areas work once again. Furthermore, the voluntary sector can be a means with which to represent a stronger unified voice to inform the government on best ways forward. I can increasingly see the third sector starting to lean on the side of pressure groups as a result of localism; their bargaining power increased but the eventual decision not necessarily as decentralised as first imagined.

 Thanks for looking,

Chris

This article is written from a personal perspective.

What will the Coalition Government mean for Town Planning?

The full coalition government document can be found here: http://www.direct.gov.uk/prod_consum_dg/groups/dg_digitalassets/@dg/@en/documents/digitalasset/dg_187876.pdf

Good evening,

Its my first post for a few days, but I delayed posting on the Coalition Government and town planning reform before more information became available as to how far such change would extend and who would be leading it. As a planning student, I attended the RTPi Yorkshire Annual Development Control Conference in York yesterday which provided an insight into some of the viewpoints in planning to the coalition government’s intentions. We now know that Eric Pickles will be Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government, and a very vague responsibility of Planning policy for minister Greg Clark, and ‘planning’ for Bob Neill. Very inspiring.

In this post I will disect the main policy objectives for the planning system and note how I regard these changes. Initially though I will cover briefly the labour planning system. While there are many qualms about the system under the 13 year long previous Labour Government, I am also confident of the positives that era brought to planning reform.  Aspects of the Local Development Framework (LDF) process have worked, notably in the arenas of sustainability and economic development. Planning Policy Statements have been updated accordingly, some written without conviction but generally appreciating a modern spatial planning vision in line with the Royal Town Planning Institute, academic sources, local government and recommendations from NGOs being unsuccessfulTown Planning. Lets also note the importance of the Barker Reviews (Housing 2004 and Land Use Planning 2006) and the Killian-Pretty Review (2008) in facilitating improvements to economic development and the development control process respectively. While not a labour supporter on all issues I take allegiance to them on the built environment. I think they brought in sufficient reform and there was consensus in 1997 that planning applications were taking too long to process; by 2001/02 improvements started to emerge and now authorities generally reach a 75-80% target for meeting applications within 8 weeks. Yes, the Killian-Pretty Review outlined difficulties in the process (many) and yes, there may be funding/other implications to not meeting the given deadline but there needs to be that kind of an ‘incentive’ (almost) to ensure efficient procedures here. The list of suggestions by Barker and Killian/Pretty would be far longer if they had been commissioned in 1997 to look at improving the system.

And now for the proposed coalition changes:

The government says it will create Local Housing Trusts to develop ‘homes for local people’ where there is strong community backing (no more than 10% opposition in a local referendum.

Verdict: Nonsense, because there is an extremely high doubt over the definition of “local people”. It will be ‘local people’ that will be in the majority that dislike affordable housing, unless it is for their own benefit or family arena. Local Housing Trusts will have the ability to approve housing of most given types, I can just see a further prevalence of large housing in affluent areas enforcing affordable homes to the ‘pathetic end’ of housing sites in urban areas.

• It also states that all affordale housing delivered will qualify for a council tax incentive scheme with every new built affordable home earning the local authority 125% of council tax raised by that unit, for 6 years.

Verdict: Acceptable in principle, funding process required for the incentive. How would this work with the Local Housing Trusts system?

• The Local Planning Authority will lose the right to decide applications in respect of new schools. Planning applications to build new schools will be assessed by short planning inquiries followed by the decision by the Secretary of State for Education.

Verdict: Approve. We need better planned allocation of education places and new schools. Planning applications for schools should still be dealt taking note of the Local Planning Authority being a major material consideration. 

• An end to re-writing of Development Planning Documents (DPDs) that include the Core Strategy, Adopted Proposals Map etc by inspectors on independent examination. So long as they comply with national policy, developed fairly, and are equitable to neighbouring communities, they will be approved.

Verdict: Against. There have often been valid reasons to rewrite DPDs on the basis of soundness. They are being rewritten because of an unsound process; non-compliance with a policy, unfairly developed or because they are not equitable to neighbouring communities!

• If new local plans have not been completed within a prescribed period, a presumption in favour of sustainable development will automatically apply,  in accordance with national policy, making applications acceptable in line with this.

Verdict: Mostly agreed with but can understand the contentions. The speed of development plans has long been disputed. Most Local Development Frameworks have still not been finalised 6 years after the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004 necessitated on their creation.  I can see problems in the appeal and planning law process with the principle of turning to national policy if the local authority meets the deadline. Using national objectives will obviously not specify planning to local issues and it may enforce the local planning authority to get their act together. But authorities in return will want the government to free up the system to allow them to do that.

• We will abolish the unelected Infrastructure Planning Commission (IPC)

Verdict: disagree. I think we needed a separate (yes centralised) body that dealt with the more major applications for the likes of power generation, airports, roads and so forth. It would be wrong to turn this case backwards now and would clog up the workload of local authorities. We do not want a situation where the major applications, representing a minute proportion of planning applications crowd out the smaller applications that equally matter, especially when public service resources may be cut further.

Regional Planning

• Rapidly abolish Regional Spatial Strategies and Regional Development Agencies.

Verdict: Fair enough. Labour has taken hold of more councils than it hoped but generally most are Conservative controlled and this works in their favour. I have long been dubious about Regional Spatial Strategies particularly for housing allocation, but do not mind Regional Development Agencies

• More right to neighbourhoods to shape the places they live in.

Verdict: Incredibly dangerous. From an equal opportunities perspective this is worrying. We need a continuation of integrated planning, not giving those who are the loudest the power the judge.

• We will publish a consolidated national planning framework covering all forms of development. Planning Policy Statements will be slimmed back to one statement and guidance notes on each individual characteristic.

Verdict: I agree. I very much agree that we need a consolidated national planning framework, but I am slightly unsteady on the cutback of PPS’s – how long will that take and will there be any ambiguities in the transition period?

• Abolish the government office for London.

Verdict: I approve. This is a whirlwind subject and London should not warrant a separate identity. It already has much going for itself in the built environment to define itself from other areas.

• We will cut local government inspections and abolish the Comprehensive Area Assessment.

Verdict: disagree in the short term, prospects possible in the long term. I understand that the past government has been very target driven, planning included but given major shortfalls in certain cases (social care, fraud cases etc) I see no reason at the moment why we should scrap CAA.

• We will promote ‘home on the farm’ schemes that promote the conversion of farm buildings to affordable housing.

Verdict: Utterly impractical. This would go against strict local policies on development in the countryside, and would be an unsustainable location for affordable housing.

The full coalition government document can be found here: http://www.direct.gov.uk/prod_consum_dg/groups/dg_digitalassets/@dg/@en/documents/digitalasset/dg_187876.pdf

Coalition Government and Tuition Fees

Today it has been outlined by the Liberal Democrats that they would abstain on a vote on tuition fees which would (more than likely) pave the way for Conservative Party reform and fees hikes for students.

I write tonight’s post under the premise that my views are not, unless stated, representing views of the National Union of Students and the ‘Vote for Students’ Campaign.

My position (as outlined in previous posts) is that I agree with paying tuition fees for University at the current amount but would not be prepared to accept anything more than a very nominal increase (and we are talking hundreds of pounds here by that insinuation) on student society as a whole. Higher education is not a right but the social welfare support and financial assistance is a right in Higher Education. However, in the role I am working in, my position is far outweighed and I will be staunchly against further rises but not supporting any cuts to fees, until a valid and agreeable strategy for paying for a free education system by a government is established.

There are a lot of people disenchanted with the lib dems for going against their promises. I did sign the ‘vote for students’ on the premise of not increasing the cap on tuition fees and not to side with any Lib Dem policy on making higher education free of charge. As such I feel a little misled that I have signed the campaign with the wrong intentions. Lib Dems did not shout this out as a major policy objective (we never heard of it on the news and speeches, only in the manifesto) it was instead the determined and respected work of the NUS that highlighted this policy objective. I accept that Lib Dem MPs have gone against the principles of ‘vote for students’ by abstaining, which would open up tuition fee rises when campaign is to protect the existing charge and for no rise. But I reject the idea that the Lib Dem Manifesto (separate to the action of signing the pledge) has ‘betrayed’ us, as their objectives lacked funding to cover it (as in many typical vague manifesto policies), and their idea of free education went against ‘vote for students’ attempts to find a fairer funding system. A system that goes from fees to no fees is fair to students but not fair to a lot of other people, although I appreciate that the NUS is working in its interests. This will have to be something that we agree to disagree on. I agree with taxpayers paying for maintenance/welfare support in the current system but not all fees outright for students to go to university and aspire to whatever they want to be (myself included) at the expense of souls who do not want to go to university and look to be devalued in the production line of University targets.

I am a positive leaner towards the NUS blueprint model advocating for payment after University as shown on their website (see below), although feel a little devalued that I took the very inspirational ‘vote for students’ campaign in a slightly different light to how opinions are being broadcast across social networking and media at the current time.

In summary I support that students have been misled by lib dems going against the ‘vote for students’ campaign solely on fee rises and not the principles of free higher education, but disagree fully with the opinions I have seen that the party has gone against their manifesto as their suggestion was never fully costed and no manifesto policy (i regard) is ever set in stone.

Please feel free to comment, as I know we have very differing senses of opinion on this sensitve matter.

Chris

Full details of the NUS blueprint model can be found here: http://www.nus.org.uk/PageFiles/5816/NUS_Blueprint_Summary_report_final.pdf

Blog Post: Why I will vote Liberal Democrat and not Conservative on May 6th

Voting Liberal Democrats on the 6th May

Good afternoon everyone,

I have chosen today, while procrastinating on an increasingly dry essay about the essence of development control in the UK, to announce (much in a fashion akin to our newspapers) my support for political parties in the election. I may only be reaching my first ever national election but I’ve long had a view on political matters outside the work environment. I’ve usually tied to the Conservative Party on many occasions and was for a long while including voting locally in Sheffield (even if it made little difference here), because I hold many views that are traditional in nature and I am keen to protect rural affairs, something I see the tories as being advantageous in achieving. I consider myself as a one nation conservative biased towards the centre rather than the right, focussing on civil liberties. But I recognise a lot of the background to other viewpoints within the tories is over a compulsive tory desire to favour those on a higher income. It is a very divided political party.

For the election on May 6th I have decided to vote for Liberal Democrats. No party in the running explicitly wows me, although a few consistently anger me (British National Party, UKIP and the Monster Raving Loony Party, to name but a few).

Why have I made this decision?

I took a long and hard look over the past couple of years and assessed who I had the most trust in, and while the Conservatives under Cameron (but particularly Osborne) had faced a degradation of my trust, the Labour and Lib Dem outlook had risen susbstantially. It was a mixture of the expenses/banks scandal, wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, pursuit of ID cards and a lax immigration policy that particularly took me off the Labour consideration but the mire of additional University places and targets for 50% to go to University+ forcing it into a “production line of education” was the final straw. I do however strongly promote the positive values of the Labour Party in the SureStart childrens centres, NHS, social housing methods and a lot of the reforms to Town Planning that have took place. I disagree with the Conservatives and Lib Dems that centralisation to planning has been an inherently bad thing, and I support the introduction of the Infrastructure Planning Commission.  But poor Gordon Brown is saddled with the dregs of Blair’s reign. Blair too is one fundamental reason why New Labour is not a preference to me, I have severe distaste in such an unjust profiteer and it has unfortunately tainted the reputation of his successor. After all lest not forget that Mr Brown was very central to Blair’s successes and failures being Mr Moneybags at the time…

I support the Liberal Democrats for this election with a word of caution, a premise of trying something new, and that if it does not work out I will expect to be very disappointed. But if we don’t try and see whether their values work by doing the usual “oh they will not win here so I won’t bother voting for them” then we will never change from the same old drivvle. I say that with caution as well – we know that Liberal Democrats are not an extreme party with specific threats so I feel open to say ‘try something new’.

 I support them because of a favour to end the Trident programme that we strategically cannot afford and do not need. I am pleased with their views on disability and with that being such a large proportion of my work remit I am happy to support the Lib Dems more than any other party in establishing schools that are more integrated for special educational needs than now.  I am for their proposals to increase tax on aviation and wealthy estates to fund a dismissal of income tax for those earning under 10,000 pounds. While I find University is becoming a production line, with endless Labour policy of increasing the numbers and devaluing higher education,  I see an increasing difficulty over tuition fees among the student population and the Liberal Democrats are the only party specifically saying what they will do clearly (to eradicate such a policy). It may take 6 years but this is a considerable investment to take back on the government’s side and I abstain on this with caution. I personally think that I should have to pay for University (though not as much as current fees or what the Browne Review may state) but I know my opinion is in a minority of interests. But the rise of numbers at university dilute the benefits of getting a higher wage (greater competition in jobs etc) and any tuition fee rises will ensure (regardless of the small amount paid each month) that people will be paying off debt for an entire eternity. I am fiercely against finance deals and it is on this basis that I reject tuition fee rises. I also reject free higher education. But the other parties weaknesses has ensured I can forgo lib dems on this matter, and in the next 4 years I might well vote differently.

 

The idea to abolish the Child Trust Fund is a good idea because there were many children who missed out when the system was introduced and it created an unnecessary divide between those who had the fund and those ill prepared without it. We need empty homes to be resolved as many are simply sitting there rotting, and I see that the Liberal Democrats are the only party to really mention this properly. Finally I think that their plans for the restructure of the Royal Mail and the Post Office are a sensible compromise between privatising the whole interests and taking on the burden of deep difficulties within Royal Mail. I was for the change in working practices but against a lot of post office closures and strikes and this policy may maintain some confidence after the company returned to profit over the last year.

But I appreciate that the Lib Dems are far from perfect as well – I vehemently oppose their somewhat idiotic preference towards adopting the Euro and increasing EU powers on crime/terror/employment matters. But I accept that the EU has been good for some things, particularly in the arena of Environmental protection – it would be foolish to do away with the directives imposed on our aviation, our carbon emissions, and so forth (even though it requires further thought and urgency). I show distasted at their priority to allow illegal immigrants the right to stay after being here for 10 year unnoticed, even if it is a failure of the government to recognise it. But I support the regionalisation of immigration policy to divert economic attention to where it is needed. 

Why have I lost faith in the Conservatives?

Look below and I’m sure you will find the answer… 

The reason why the Conservatives have put me off

I believe that certain figures in the party are single handedly, apart from the odd homophobic or foreign bank account traditionalist tory (5 of whom I count in newspapers), ruining the efforts of the Conservative Party, which I feel are good in many ways. In 2005 when Cameron took leadership I had far higher hopes than I do now – the supposed ‘modernisation’ of the party was a bold and approved way forward to challenge the stuffy and inappropriate morals of the party that were a residue of the Thatcher reign. I also really agreed with the reappointment of William Hague to a higher role in Parliament. But I am a person that very much relies on trust and expressions of leadership, and while I am in agreement with many of the vote for change policies (referendum on EU, avoiding the Euro, expansion of surestart, reduction of immigration to a lower level, married couples/civil partnerships a tax break) there is a lot wrong with the way they are conveyed with Cameron and Osborne, there is not enough clout there and the reforms aren’t as radical as first promised. Additionally, there are a lot of wayward ‘golden oldie’ traditionalists in the Conservative Party that are intent on undoing the move to more centrist policy aims, and I really don’t like that.

There is no sense of conviction, trust, or honesty in their language. What they say brings an aura of slyness and worry, and that is a great shame because my principles still tie strongly with the party. I find less slyness and worry in what Mr Clegg or Mr Brown say, even if I do get bored of the statistitian view from the latter about jobs left, right and centre. I sense there is always a lack of information from the party (yes all are guilty of this, but the Tories bring more suspicion to the issue, even vagueness of the Lincolnshire Independents in my local area is more open). I was particularly put off from 2009 when the first issues during the recession were brought up by the Tories on public spending and Mr Osborne refused to answer questions effectively. This is something that both Labour and Conservative parties are particularly guilty of. Remember the Jack Straw monstrosity in the Nick Griffin question time episode? I do disagree with some of the policies they possess, such as reinforcing segregation between special schools and mainstream schools as this is a backwards step for inclusion. I also oppose a cut of inheritance tax on the richest estates and reject the proposterous idea of a ‘big society’ fund.

.

A time may come for me to vote for Conservative once again; a time may come when I might even vote for the Labour party. I am traditionalist by policies, but not necessarily a loyalist. I go by the principles of trust, and giving a fair chance. I found the faux-Obama ‘change’ speeches from the Conservative Party boring, but only because the change was not that radical, and I don’t find it in Gordon “I’ve had to pick up the nasty bits of the Blair years while he’s buggered off to make money out of it” Brown. Should the Tories go full hog, abandon the old hat veterans of the party that spring nasty surprises in the news that go against the Cameron modernisation, and should the wayward culture that appears more vociferous under the current tories be reduced, then i’d be prepared to vote for them.

.

I am not jumping on a Clegg bandwagon. Indeed I am sick of this X-Factor reality show esque “Clegg factor”, “Clegg Mania” nonsense appearing on our television screens, but the actual reality is that the Liberal Democrats have long been second fiddle (but not last) in my values and beliefs, and recently the gap has closed and the Tories have been superseded. Ask me in 2008 and I would have been Conservative; ask me in 2009 and I would have been Conservative; ask me in 2010 and I am cautiously Liberal Democrat.

Thanks for looking