Supplementary memorandum by Penn Parish
Council (RG 98(a))
LOCALISM AND
PLANNING—A PARISH'S
-EYE VIEW
There has been increasing talk in recent months
and years, by politicians of all hues, about "localism",
the need to devolve more power down to a local level. We welcome
this aim and acknowledge the very positive results of the government's
drive over many years to improve the effectiveness of local government
by requiring partnership working at every level, County, District
and Parish, as well as on neighbourhood policing and Local Area
Highway committees. There have also been positive as well as negative
effects from the emphasis on accountability and performance indicators.
The public is being better served by one stop shops and e-government;
and planning on line, will eventually bring benefits. There has
also been some attempt at revitalisation initiatives in towns,
although this last hasn't benefited the parishes. In many ways,
during the last 10 years or so, local government has been woken
up from a long sleep.
ODPM's declared aim is that "Local people
must have the opportunities to identify their needs and contribute
to finding solutions, rather than feel powerless in the face of
public authorities that deliver services on their behalf".
This is entirely laudable, but fails to recognise that it is powerlessness
of local people in the face of central government rather than
any short-comings of local government that is now the basic problem
Local government is in a straitjacket of central
government regulation, targets and financial limits. The really
important decisions are effectively made by distant officials
in Whitehall. It used to be very different. Parishes were entirely
self-contained, setting, collecting and spending parish taxes
to care for their old, the sick and the parentless. The Parish
appointed the local constable and repaired its own highways. These
responsibilities were gradually removed during the Victorian period
and many were given to newly created District and County Councils
just over a century ago. Since then, many of their powers have
been taken by Central Government.
The present government has continued this process
of emasculation of local government by its decision to cut out
the County Council Structure Plan, which used to set the framework
within which housing targets set by central government were spread
around the County. The County Council planning powers are now
to be exercised by a remote regional assembly with ODPM able to
over-ride their recommendation if so inclined.
Planning decisions can have a profound effect
on people's lives and it is this aspect of localism on which this
paper is focussed. The local community elect District Councillors
who sit on the District Planning Committee, which makes decisions
on planning applications after consultation with Parish Councils
and individual residents. But, as soon as there is an appeal by
the applicant against a refusal, the decision is passed to the
Planning Inspectorate at Bristol and an Inspector, an unelected
official appointed by the ODPM, makes the final judgement, which
can, and often does, override the decision of the elected authority.
This in turn influences subsequent decisions by the local authority
because they have to meet a government-imposed target that they
must lose no more than one third of appeal cases.
Two prominent examples in Buckinghamshire of
this unhappy process are Tesco in Old Amersham and in Gerrards
Cross. In both cases, there was strong local opposition, in the
certain knowledge that a huge new supermarket would be a death
knell for smaller local shops and would increase local traffic
for miles around. The two District Councils refused the applications,
but both applications were allowed on appeal by Inspectors. Local
decisions of this kind, based on Local Plans, should not be over-turned.
Whilst we maintain adamantly that these "tactical"
planning decisions must be left to local decision, we cannot reasonably
argue against the need for central government to take the strategic
planning decisions, provided that local views are properly taken
into account, but they are not. Wholly over-ambitious housing
targets are now being proposed by the ODPM. Local authorities
are now being required to give clear evidence of a 20 year supply
of housing land and told that if this cannot be met from within
our "urban" areas (often our back gardens) then other
land will have to be released, including Green Belt. The character
of many of our older residential areas is now being eroded because
attractive older houses with larger gardens that do not qualify
for the very restricted qualification as a Listed Building are
being knocked down and replaced by blocks of flats or several
new houses. They have no protection and their gardens are classified
in planning terms as the equivalent of the brown field sites of
an urban area. A domino effect is created as neighbours fear for
their privacy and sell to developers, leading to too many houses
being crammed into too small a space. A Private Members Bill dealing
with this problem (Protection of Private Gardens (Housing Development)
was listed in Hansard on 1 February 2006.
These over-ambitious housing targets take no
account of wider concerns about infrastructure—water supply,
when we are already facing an unprecedented April hosepipe ban,
sewage disposal, pollution, the provision of schools, hospitals,
doctors, dentists etc. Nor is the cumulative effect of additions
to vehicle use being adequately taken into account. Traffic is
already a very serious problem with local journeys to work or
to school critically affected by the smallest breakdown, road
repair or accident. An accident on the M40 can cause gridlock
widely in the surrounding area. Small local roads cannot cope
with these vast increases in traffic. Bus services have just been
reduced to two of our villages. The inexorable conclusion must
be that far too much of the focus of development is on the South
East and much greater effort should be made to encourage interest
in other regional areas where development is actually needed.
Even in smaller matters, a recent example indicates
that actions are speaking louder than words. The Government expresses
concern about the closure of local Post Offices, but last year,
the closure of our Post Office after over a century, was actually
encouraged by the Government making available a large sum of money
to compensate Postmasters for the closure of their premises. It
was as if they were bribed to close down and so many local residents
now have to use their cars to get to the nearest Post Office.
To sum up. Local government, in Buckinghamshire
at least, is in better fettle than it has been for generations,
but it is still not trusted to make significant decisions affecting
its residents. The removal of a decisive County Council voice
in planning policy matters is a serious error. Local people do
indeed feel powerless in the face of public authorities, but it
is central government diktats rather than inadequate local government
that are now the problem and are causing lasting damage to our
communities. More effort must be made to encourage development
elsewhere than the South East. As long as central government holds
the purse strings and over-rides the wishes of knowledgeable local
authorities on planning, police, transport and infrastructure,
localism will remain more good intention than reality
|
