Localism Bill

Memorandum submitted by the Friends of Lewes (L 102)

Summary

The Friends of Lewes is the civic society of Lewes in East Sussex, with over 500 members. The Society supports the broad objectives claimed for the Bill including decentralisation, reducing the burden of bureaucracy, and empowering communities to do things their way. However, we have major concerns in relation to:

· The lack of clarity in the clause dealing with predetermination (Clause 13) and the duty to co-operate (Clause 90);

· In relation to neighbourhood Plans, we are concerned about the complexity of the procedures, the adequacy of funds for their preparation, and their democratic legitimacy;

· The duty imposed on developers to consult (Clause 102) is insufficiently defined;

· Listed building and conservation area should be afforded exactly the same level of protection in areas covered by NDOs as in all other areas (Schedule 12)

· Local planning authorities, as well as Town and Parish Councils and Neighbourhood Forums preparing Neighbourhood Plans, need guidance on complex topics such as flooding and climate change. Proposals for a "single concise [planning policy and guidance] document" will be wholly inadequate.

· The Government’s enthusiasm to reduce the burden of bureaucracy will lead to poor standards of development being allowed through Neighbourhood Development Order and in other ways on the spurious grounds that they are "sustainable".

Much more prior discussion, initiated through the publication of a Green Paper, would have improved this Bill.

Introduction

1. The Friends of Lewes is the civic society of Lewes in East Sussex. The Society, which is affiliated to Civic Voice, has been actively campaigning to protect and enhance the environment of this historic town for 59 years, and has over 500 members. Lewes has been an important market and administrative centre since before the Norman conquest. Today, Sussex Police, East Sussex County Council and Lewes District Council have their head offices in the town together with the offices of many commercial and public bodies. There are many listed buildings to remind residents and visitors of town’s long history.

2. The Society supports the broad objectives claimed for the Bill including decentralisation, reducing the burden of bureaucracy, and empowering communities to do things their way. Nevertheless, we are concerned about many aspects of the Bill which we regard as fundamentally flawed.

3. In our view it is very important to ensure that complex legislation such as this Bill is clear, unequivocal, and does not create a climate of uncertainty. However, in many areas it is quite unclear what the effects of the Bill will be. In its present form, the Bill depends heavily on the future drafting of regulation and statements of policy, as well as requiring amendments to other statutes. It is most unlikely that the implications of this piece of legislation will be fully understood until all these regulations and statements have been published. In proceeding in this manner, we consider that the Government is disregarding two of its objectives. Relying on the Secretary of State to draft Regulations after the passage of the Bill through Parliament is a form of centralisation. The uncertainty that surrounds many aspects of the Bill and the need for additional Regulations and statements can only add to the burden of bureaucracy. We consider that much more prior discussion, initiated through the publication of a Green Paper, would have improved this Bill.

Predetermination

4. The Society welcomes the changes proposed in Clause 13 which should allow it to discuss planning applications with elected members. However, we are concerned as to whether it will be effective without greater clarity over what actions on the part of an elected representative would constitute evidence of having a closed mind. As drafted, the Bill gives no guidance to local authorities on the appropriate level of early involvement of elected members in planning discussions, and local authorities are likely to continue to be over cautious in advising members what they can and cannot discuss.

A duty to co-operate

5. Being co-operative is generally preferable to being uncooperative. To that extent the Society welcomes the introduction of a statutory duty to co-operate in Clause 90. However, the duty does not seem to extend to reaching agreement. Nor does the Bill define what constitutes a failure to co-operate, who will monitor whether there has been adequate co-operation, or what sanctions there are for a failure to co-operate.

6. Furthermore, it is not clear to whom this duty will apply. It is fundamentally unsatisfactory to just say that the people and organisations will be prescribed. Will the local planning authority be required to co-operate with a civic society such as ours? We very much hope so.

Local and Neighbourhood Planning

7. Whilst we find the concept of Neighbourhood Plans interesting, the procedures proposed in the Bill appear very complex and there are a number of questions which remain unanswered, such as the precise status of Neighbourhood Plans. Clause 97 provides for funding for Neighbourhood Plans to come from those developments that gain permission through being part of an NDO. However, even if the NDO is approved in a referendum, this is no guarantee of development taking place, and therefore there can be no guarantee of funding even in arrears. Clause 100 relates to the possible financial assistance by the Secretary of State which, in the present financial climate, is most unlikely to be significant. The requirement that local planning authorities support neighbourhoods undertaking planning could be a significant burden on local authorities at a time when budgets are being cut back.

8. We question whether all the Town and Parish Councils and Neighbourhood Forums that will have a right to prepare Neighbourhood Plans and to designate areas where Neighbourhood Development Orders (NDO) will have democratic legitimacy. Parish Councils that are designated as Town Councils are of a significant size but some parishes are very small indeed and some Neighbourhood Forums could also be very small. This creates a risk of a few individuals either being able to prevent development that is more widely regarded as being in the public interest or, equally possible, promote development that is more widely regarded as being against the public interest. In the Society’s view, Parish Councils and Neighbourhood Forums should meet a minimum size requirement before they are able to use the powers proposed in the Bill. There should also be a duty to consult neighbouring areas at a formative stage of any plan.

9. It seems to this Society unfortunate that the Government did not see fit to publish its ideas for Neighbourhood Plans and Neighbourhood Development Order in a green paper before including them in a Bill. In that way, many people and organisations with an interest could have contributed to their refinement. Our fear is that the provisions of the Bill will be enacted but will remain largely unused. Neighbourhood Plans will then be regarded as a ‘failure’ without ever having been properly tested.

A duty on developers to consult

10. The Society welcomes Clause 102 which shifts the duty to consult on applications for planning consent for major projects onto the applicant. However, this raises a number of questions:

· Who will judge, and how will they decide, whether the duty has been met satisfactorily?

· Will it be accompanied by a power to refuse to accept applications on which consultation is deemed inadequate?

· Will it replace or run in parallel with existing requirements on notification?

Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas

11. Schedule 12, paragraphs 22 to 24, of the Bill would amend the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990, which gives local planning authorities powers to block developments that would damage the setting of a listed building or conservation area, so that the powers would no longer apply to areas covered by Neighbourhood Development Orders (NDOs). In the view of the Society, listed building or conservation area should be afforded exactly the same level of protection in areas covered by NDOs as in all other areas.

Planning policy and guidance

12. In parallel with the Localism Bill, the Government has announced its intention to significantly reduce the amount of planning policy and guidance which it describes as "unclear and burdensome" (announcement by the Decentralisation Minister Greg Clark on 21 December 2010 – http://www.communities.gov.uk/news/corporate/1804403). This is not covered in the Bill, presumably, because it does not require primary legislation. Whilst supporting the Government’s general objective of reducing the burden of bureaucracy, we are concerned because many of the issues dealt with by local planning authorities are complex and smaller authorities do not have expertise in all fields. They need guidance on complex topics such as flooding, renewable energy and climate change, as will Town and Parish Councils and Neighbourhood Forums contemplating the preparation of Neighbourhood Plans. The proposal for a "single concise document" will be wholly inadequate. In the view of this Society, the problem is not the volume of planning policy and guidance but that it is treated as regulations rather than guidance. Local planning authorities should be required to consider the guidance from the Secretary of State but should be much freer to reach decisions based on local circumstances. The Localism Bill provides an opportunity to define the status of the Secretary of State’s planning guidance.

Presumption in favour of sustainable development

13. The Bill refers to sustainable development in Clause 90. The Decentralisation Minister Greg Clark also referred, in his statement on 21 December 2010, to the Government’s intention to establish a presumption in favour of sustainable development. The 2004 Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act already requires that people and organisations exercising a local planning function must do so in a way that contributes to the achievement of sustainable development. This also has a general requirement that planning applications are determined in accordance with the development plan. The 2008 Planning Act added a requirement that development plan documents must include policies that contribute to the mitigation of, and adaptation to, climate change.

14. Everyone is in favour of sustainable development, but what is it? The Society is concerned that, the Government’s enthusiasm to reduce the burden of bureaucracy will lead to inadequate guidance on what constitutes sustainable development. In turn, that will lead to poor standards of development being allowed through Neighbourhood Development Order and in other ways on the spurious grounds that they are "sustainable".

February 2011