Power to the People?

Stephen Ashworth suggests that the government's new commitment to localism may not prove to be quite as radical as it first appears.

Has localism already bitten the dust? The Queen's speech might suggest so, or at least that localism is being redefined. The speech contained proposals for a Decentralisation and Localism Bill. This will abolish Regional Development Agencies and the Infrastructure Planning Commission. It will change Local Development Frameworks, to make them more "bottom up". It will allow for the creation of Local Enterprise Partnerships. The Public Bodies (Reform) Bill will let Quangos  be dismembered. Alongside the Queen's speech was a policy statement suggesting there will be referenda for mayors in a dozen or so cities. At headline level this looks like localism.

But is it really so in practice?  How "local" will localism be?

Although RDAs will be abolished the government is proposing Local Enterprise Partnerships. These will be private sector lead boards, focused on "natural economic areas" that will promote, manage and inform plans for those areas. LEPs will be vetted, and possibly approved, by Whitehall. It is intended that they will, to some extent at least, act as both gatekeepers and conduits to infrastructure investment in their areas. The implicit threat to local authorities seems to be that they must engage in their LEPs or risk infrastructure funds drying up. Clearly, LEPs will be far more "local" than RDAs, but they will hardly operate at the individual or neighbourhood level.  It will be 'nearly localism'.

The regional structure of planning will be dismantled. The Secretary of State has already sent a letter to local authorities confirming that Regional Spatial Strategies will be abolished. The letter effectively invited local authorities to discount  housing targets that they felt were imposed on them. South Oxfordshire District Council has already halted progress on its emerging core strategy.  Jettisoning existing LDF arrangements, in which local groups have, often, invested significant time and effort, is unlikely to encourage local future local activism. It will be new localism, since historic community efforts will largely be lost as the process restarts.

The proposed shape of the new Local Development Frameworks is, at best, opaque. They will, apparently, be controlled ultimately by local authorities, so they will really not be a reflection of individual or neighbourhood interests. Local authorities will take responsibility for promoting the new plans. In both those aspects, they will not differ greatly from the existing arrangements. LDFs will, doubtless, reflect voter interests but what about other local concerns? What about existing local businesses; how will they be represented, how will they have a voice? What about businesses that want to be represented in the area; how will they be included? What about landowners; how will they be able to exercise influence?  It seems that, at best, we will have partial localism, with several classes of interest being largely ignored.

And local authorities will still, apparently, have to address issues of housing and economic development need (rightly). Some of those needs will, inevitably, arise outside their local area. As mentioned above, the resulting plans will need to reflect infrastructure plans which will, themselves, be dependent on LEP input so again, at best, we will have limited localism.

There are a few inconsistencies in the approach to planning.  It seems that schools will be semi-detached from the formal planning process, and will follow a special procedure with a short cut to the Secretary of State if there are any issues or delay.  Clearly localism is acceptable unless there is a risk that locals might object to Central Government policy.  At present it is unclear whether the Government will pursue third party rights of appeal.  If they do then there will need to be an explanation about how that fits with the localism agenda.  A decision to grant consent, made by the locally elected authority, presumably having taken account of the locally defined LDF will be open to be over-turned on appeal, at the request of local residents.  So here we will have inconsistent and possibly self-contradictory localism.

There is then a need to think about the impact of spending cuts. Clearly local authorities are expected to bear more than their proportionate share of cuts, given the budget protection given to health and other departments. There will be less money within local authorities. There will be significantly less discretionary money. Authorities are already reacting to these financial constraints and, anecdotally, cuts are already being made. Planning departments, and those involved in forward planning in particular, will face cuts. Perhaps we will have under-informed localism.

There is also no mention in the Queen's speech or anywhere else, of a core component of local power and genuine localism, which is some form of fiscal freedom. There is no hint that local authorities, or even smaller units of government, will be given any new tax or charge raising powers. Although powers of general competence for local authorities are on the statutory agenda, fiscal powers are not. The consequence will be under funded localism.

So what do we have?  The result seems to be that the approach is to offer nearly new, inconsistent, underfunded, under-informed partial and limited localism.  That is hardly a catchphrase. Nor does it inspire great confidence that the reforms have been well thought through.  While each element of the proposals may well be sensible, and in some cases the changes are long overdue, there is a danger the tensions in the system will require it to be revisited and reinvented all too soon.  In straitened economic times change and uncertainty have real costs.  It might be better to reinvent or redefine localism so there is a greater coherence to it, and a greater likelihood the reforms being promoted in its name will last.

Stephen Ashworth is a consultant at Denton Wilde Sapte LLP