Localism

Memorandum from Bryan S. Jezeph (LOCO 021)

Comments Upon Coalition Government’s Localism Agenda.

1.0 Summary

· The principle of Localism in terms of ensuring greater benefits for local communities is strongly supported. However, the published advice will not achieve this objective.

· How can the issue of Sustainability be given adequate emphasis when local residents have a different agenda – minimising the impact upon them?

· The Sustainability Assessment does not include the assessment of existing facilities. Thus, the fact that there is an existing school with capacity or even a need for more pupils to ensure its viability is not part of the evaluation process. The same applies to the existence of community facilities. The fact that they exist is beneficial but they need greater investment or usage. A similar situation applies to churches, shops etc. On the other hand, a new Major/Strategic Development Area is favoured where new schools, community facilities, churches and shops have to be provided. The priority should be reversed. Optimise the existing and then promote the new.

· Engaging with local residents is resisted even if benefits are offered. Attempts to engage Parish Councils in the past two years have met with resistance and prevarication. Of four Parish Council’s in Winchester District, one has received a presentation and discussed "wish lists" for new facilities; one has refused outright to engage; one has agreed but not offered a date over a year of discussion and finally, the fourth agreed to receive a private presentation on the basis that no reference was made by my practice to the event taking place and no note of meeting.

· The offer of benefits by way of Council Tax payments for six years may be helpful to some Districts. In the case of Winchester, for example, there are two major developments proposed at Whiteley (an extension of 3000 new dwellings) and West of Waterlooville (an additional 1000 proposed over and above an agreed figure of 2000). Whiteley adjoins the boundary of Fareham Borough but it is 15 miles from Winchester City while West of Waterlooville is co-terminous with Havant Borough Council but 17 miles from Winchester City. How will the local community benefit from the Council Tax benefits?

· Some Districts such as Hart are so constrained that little development is proposed and the benefits will not materialise at all.

· Finally, development can assist with the issue of sustainability by providing sources of energy that could serve the existing community such as wind farms, ground source thermal systems, etc.

2.0 Detailed Evaluation

The Principle of Localism

2.1 The principle of Localism in terms of ensuring greater benefits for local communities is strongly supported. However, the published advice will not achieve this objective.

2.2 As a Town Planner (MRTPI) and a Chartered Surveyor (FRICS), I am able to advise developers on both planning and valuation matters. The combination of these skills enables me to provide advice on both planning and development issues. As a result, I pre-empted the ‘localism agenda’ by pursuing my own version over the past few years to try to engage communities and to offer the prospect of enhancing local facilities. Sadly, in the main, this fell upon ‘deaf ears’.

2.3 I had the good fortune of receiving instructions from client landowners who were willing to make significant contributions to local communities as part of the promotion of their land. I have therefore tested ‘localism’ already and I have set out my experience in the section below entitled ‘Consulting Local Communities’.

Political Representation

2.4 The promotion of land is exceptionally complex and it is difficult to explain the issues to local residents. This is especially the case in the context of public opposition to development. I suspect that the Parish Councils consider that to discuss development proposals and "wish lists" is like "communing with the enemy".

2.5 I have recently received a publication showing the faces of the Councillors in the Borough of Fareham. The average age of the Councillors was clearly in the plus 50 range and probably much older. There were no Councillors under 40. These Councillors essentially represent the same age group which is dominated by ‘nimbys’.

2.6 This extremely biased representation means that the young are not involved in the process. Perhaps, it is necessary to consult young people including local school children separately. They are the ones who will appreciate the need for more housing as they are or will be the ones who cannot afford to buy without parental support or even afford rents. I often hear that young people are leaving the UK to find housing at affordable prices.

2.7 The young and poor are not organised as a pressure group and there is no motivation to place housing higher on the agenda in spite of the consequences for a large sector of the community. Even the issue of the ageing population fails to reach the agenda. It is essential that every local community is "incentivised" and required to provide housing to meet the needs of these groups.

Sustainability

2.8 One of the objectives of the planning system is to guide development towards the most sustainable locations. This raises two significant issues. In the first place, local residents have a different agenda. Their objective is to guide development away from their homes. This means that many schemes have political support where it affects the least number of people. This is one of the reasons for the support for development on the Strategic Development Areas and Major Development Areas of Whiteley and West of Waterlooville. These large areas have very few local residents while the landowners are the greatest beneficiaries.

2.9 It is surprising and not widely recognised that the Sustainability Assessment does not include the assessment of existing facilities. Thus, the fact that there may be an existing school with capacity or even a need for more pupils to ensure its viability is not part of the evaluation process. The same applies to the existence of community facilities. Besides the fact that they are already available, or may need greater investment or usage is not part of the assessment. The same issues affect churches, shops, jobs etc. This issue is especially important in times of recession when in investment in schools is on hold and finance for community facilities severely restricted.

2.10 On the other hand, a new Major/Strategic Development Area is favoured where new schools, community facilities, churches and shops have to be provided. The priority should be reversed. Optimise the existing and then promote the new.

2.11 I have been advised that a new primary school costs in the region of £10 million while a secondary school is around £25-30 million. As a result, school children have to be bussed out of the area to attend secondary schools. Is this something that can be contemplated in the SDA at Whiteley in the near future?

2.12 In my opinion, Whiteley is one of the most unsustainable locations in the South East of England. It relies on access from a Motorway Junction. It is evident that a very high proportion of employees travel by car as it is virtually impossible to travel there by public transport. The bus services must serve a very wide sub-region and the nearest railway station is outside the area. Once in the area, there are many firms and consequent job opportunities but it is very difficult to park there. Car parks are full and the access roads to the commercial buildings are entirely lined by workers’ cars.

2.13 On the other hand, development on the edge of existing settlements will help to sustain local facilities including schools and will promote development in difficult times. Maximising existing facilities is a fundamental consideration in the assessment of sustainability. More development can also provide support for public transport.

Tax Incentives

2.14 The offer of benefits by way of Council Tax payments for six years may be helpful to some Districts. It is uncertain how the local community or neighbourhood will benefit from these payments. They are not likely to influence the location of development but simply raise revenue.

2.15 In the example of Winchester District, there are two major developments proposed at Whiteley (3000 new dwellings) and West of Waterlooville (an additional 1000 proposed over and above an agreed figure of 2000). Whiteley adjoins the boundary of Fareham Borough but it is 15 miles from Winchester City while West of Waterlooville is co-terminous with Havant Borough Council but 17 miles from Winchester City. How will the local community benefit from the Council Tax benefits?

2.16 By contrast, development at the West of Waterlooville provides facilities mostly for the residents of Havant and Whiteley provides the same limitations with very few benefits for the wider population of Winchester District. This means that the ratepayers of Winchester will benefit from these payments while the new residents of these growth areas will look to the adjoining authorities for their services and facilities.

Consulting Local Communtities

2.17 In my role as a planning consultant, I have made innumerable presentations to local resident groups and Councils. The difficulty of persuading local residents that there was any benefit in accepting development made me realise that more had to be done. This led me to consider offering benefits as part of development directly to the local community. In fact, I pre-empted the ‘localism agenda’ by pursuing my own version over the past few years to try to engage communities. I had the good fortune of receiving instructions from client landowners who were willing to make significant contributions to local communities as part of the promotion of their land.

2.18 I have been advising landowners who are promoting sites in the settlements of Bishops Waltham, Swanmore, Wickham and Denmead. As local people, the owners feel responsible for their actions and they all have an element of altruism which extends beyond the desire to sell their land for maximum value. In these four cases, my clients were willing to engage with the local community to offer the provision of significant benefits over and above the normal level of contributions sought by the Councils. As a result, I was asked to approach the local Parish Councils to attempt to ascertain their "wish lists" to provide new or improved community facilities. I can provide copies of the relevant correspondence.

2.19 There are two important considerations that determine the level of contributions that can be offered. The first is the support for realistic levels of development to provide some certainty that there will be a reward for their expenditure on promoting their land. This will ensure that there is no need to turn to a development company to promote the development. In most cases, the background work on deliverability has already been undertaken and can be proven.

2.20 The second point is that there is a threshold in every case where the contributions towards local facilities moves from a low minimal level (as typically required by S.106 agreements) to a higher level. For example, some sites require major infrastructure provision to support development which precludes significant contributions whereas other sites have few problems. In the latter case, a greater contribution towards local facilities is possible.

2.21 My example for the sake of the argument that 100 houses can only contribute towards infrastructure requirements; but for an additional 100 houses it is possible to provide significant sums towards community provision. While for a yet greater number the level of provision can be very substantial indeed. It is possible to refine these figures for each site.

2.22 In one case with which I am involved, the land owners tried to engage with the Parish Council to develop these thresholds so that the community can see the possibilities. The thresholds are difficult to be precise at this stage but for say 100 houses the owners are willing to provide 4 hectares of land for recreation purposes. For say 200 houses, the land can be laid out as playing fields and for 300 houses a pavilion can be financed and over 300 houses a pavilion plus swimming pool could be provided.

2.23 I have tried to engage with four Parish Councils in Winchester District where my clients owned land. One has received a presentation and discussed "wish lists" for new facilities; one has refused outright to engage; one has agreed but not offered a date over a year of discussion and finally, the fourth agreed to receive a private presentation on the basis that no reference was made by my practice to the event taking place and no note of meeting.

2.24 In one settlement I have tried to promote a retirement village. I have received no response or acknowledgement of this proposal from the Parish or District Council. The Parish Council agreed to meet but have prevaricated about a date for a presentation. Nothing has been arranged a year later. In another settlement, the land owner is willing to provide land for community facilities in return for support for housing development on his land. Parish Council has already indicated that it would welcome the improvement of its bus services which are exceptionally poor.

2.25 The offer of meetings with another Parish Council have been rejected. In fact, my use of a published "wish list" resulted in a letter from the Parish Council questioning its use. The Parish Council had indicated that it needs better leisure facilities.

2.26 In a third settlement, the land owners proposed a nursing home as part of a scheme for housing development and support for community facilities. The settlement needs employment opportunities and a nursing home could provide over 50 jobs. A private meeting with some Members of the Parish Council was held but only on the basis of informing the Councillors with the condition that no mention of the meeting was to be made public.

2.27 In the fourth settlement, two presentations have taken place but the Parish Council has reneged on a public statement of support for a level of development reducing the proposed number of dwellings from 250 to 114 but still expecting the same level of contributions towards facilities. It is difficult to see how the community can be obliged to maintain its position. I have consulted the Education Authority and it is very clear that utilising capacity in existing schools is the most economical solution. Children from any new development in the village can be readily accommodated in the existing school.

2.28 The release of land in these settlements could provide housing land for a range of local development companies who could provide local employment and, in turn, could be perhaps, be required to provide work for a range of apprentices etc.

Economic Benefits of encouraging House Building

2.29 There are other reasons why we should be encouraging house building. It would help the recovery from recession. It can provide jobs and support many businesses and support local facilities. Making the efficient use of limited resources is more important than ever in the emerging straitened circumstances. There is also the "multiplier effect" that new house building can bring. With the looming funding crisis for Housing Associations, the private sector could make a greater contribution to the provision of affordable housing.

DTZ Report

2.30 There is a further puzzling consideration. The Councils of Eastleigh, Fareham, Winchester and East Hampshire, jointly commissioned a study by DTZ which clearly favoured the wider distribution of development and less reliance on SDAs.

2.31 Why were the findings of this Report ignored? The Report favoured a range of smaller sites across the region and it questioned the merits of having both the West of Waterlooville MDA and the North of Fareham SDA as they both serve south east Hampshire. There has not been any reference in either the Winchester or the Fareham Core Strategies on the impact of the Fareham SDA on the rural area to the north including Wickham village. The traffic implications of 8000-10000 houses will be immense and much greater than any housing proposals in the village.

2.32 Consultation across District boundaries does not involve local residents. Unless the issues are pointed out to them they will live in ignorance until the impact becomes a reality. Consultation programmes do not attempt to involve the ‘hard to reach’.

The German Experience

2.33 A large development in Germany has been reported in the press recently. At Vauban, a suburb of Freiburg, an exceptionally sustainable housing scheme has been developed. By working with the local Council with the objective of maximising the benefits an estate has been developed which has minimised the energy requirements of the community by creating sufficient electricity that there is excess to be sold to the ‘grid’. Cars are not excluded but they are banished to a communal car park to create "home zones". Individual plots have been sold to families willing to develop carbon free homes. The development is very popular.

2.34 The Council has attributed its success to "a ground up approach, with strong local leaders and no developers"! Surely, we should be taking a similar and more pro-active and even experimental approach especially with regard to issues relating to sustainable construction. Larger scale developments on the edge of these settlements offer the prospect of providing benefits to the local residents by generating energy from a range of sustainable sources.

3.0 CONCLUSION

3.1 The greater involvement of local communities will be very beneficial. However, local residents need much stronger incentives to ensure that they take seriously the importance of promoting development. Most development creates strong hostility. Contributions to Council income is not going to influence the older members of society. Enhanced services and maximising existing facilities are not going to register with a majority of residents.

3.2 It is imperative that both a carrot and a stick approach is developed. Communities must recognise that they have a responsibility to look after the young and old and the disenfranchised. They make their contribution to the needs of the wider community in the mutual interest of us all. I do not believe that the proposals as published to date will achieve this.

October 2010