Localism

Memorandum from the Town and Country Planning Association (TCPA) (LOCO 29)

1.0 About the TCPA

1.1 The Town and Country Planning Association (TCPA) is an independent charity working to improve town and country planning. Its membership includes organisations and individuals drawn from planning practitioners in government, private practice and universities. It puts social justice and the environment at the heart of policy debate and champions fresh perspectives on major issues, of planning policy, housing, regeneration and climate change. Our objectives are to:

· Secure a decent, well designed home for everyone, in a human-scale environment combining the best features of town and country

· Empower people and communities to influence decisions that affect them

· Improve the planning system in accordance with the principles of sustainable development

1.2 The TCPA’s submission highlights the important role of local government planning services to support the delivery of local sustainable development and sustainable communities priorities. Throughout our history the TCPA has have consistently championed a positive and proactive role for local communities in shaping their own future. Collaborative governance was central to the Garden Cities movement of the late 1890s, a movement which had a profound influence on the fundamental principles of the UK planning system today. The TCPA established Planning Aid in 1973, sponsored community support projects at Lightmoor and Birkenhead in the 1980s and our work today includes providing planning guidance to planners, cultural, sport and health professionals as well as communities.

2.0 Summary of TCPA evidence

2.1 This submission is based on a series of cross-sector roundtable debates on the future of planning the TCPA organised early in 2010 . T he o utcomes from these roundtables are summaris ed in the publication ‘ Making Planning Work: a peaceful path to real reform’ , which recommends that any reforms of planning sho uld start with a commitment to res ponsible localism (this statement is included as supporting evidence) . Strong local leadership is essential to provide the homes, jobs and services that every community needs, to accelerate the move to a low-carbon society, and to protect our valuable natural environment. In parallel, widespread community participation must provide the foundation for this strong leadership. W e believe that reforms of planning must :

· be part of a much wider effort to invigorate local democracy – planning reforms cannot be promoted in isolation;

· remain based on representative democracy, avoiding distortion by narrow sectional interests; and

· ensure that reliable, independent evidence is available to help support and inform key decisions about a community’s future – and to monitor the impact of these decisions.

2.2 The TCPA recognises that the debate about localism and decentralisation of public service delivery is more than just on the planning responsibilities of local government.

2.3 In the TCPA’s briefing paper on Responsible Democratic Localism (document attached), published in September 2010, the Association highlights the following issues:

· responsible localism means

o collaborative, and participative,

o v isionary, by provid ing a long term vision,

o Democratic and accountable so that decisions are taken by local politicians,

o requires resources and skills

2.4 The TCPA’s submission addresses the vital role of local government planning services. It is in two parts. First it highlight s a number of fundamental issues , which are:

· P lanning is a necessary public service

· The n eed for strategic oversight

· Opportunities and limitations of c ommuni ty participation

Secondly, it addresses specific lines of inquiry for the Committee . These build on our written evidence to the Committee’s inquiry into the abolition of the regional spatial strategies.

3. Summary of Issues

3.1 Planning is a n ecessary p ublic s ervice

3.1.1 The TCPA believes that the spatial planning function s within a local authority are a necessary public service. Effective planning helps bring different partners together to co-ordinate and deliver responses to meet local challenges, such as housing pressures and health and well-being. Planning is also necessary and crucial to the delivery of other public services and responsibilities of local authorities and other organisations with an interest in the use and development of land, such as parks and open space, transport, sports and cultural services. Planning has, should and must inspire everyone to be involved in shaping great places to live.

3.1.2 Planning services engage in daily conversations with individuals and organisations with land and building interests wishing to use and develop their physical land assets for public and private enjoyment and amenity. Planning services also engage in daily conversations with different stakeholders and partners to enable joined-up planning and decision-making around the provision of services. In the context of the new agenda for a locally co-ordinated approach to ‘place’, planning can have an important role in linking activities at the different spatial levels. For example, the HM Treasury’s report on the Total Place initiative, found that the " Total Place approach has the scope to deliver real benefits at all spatial levels" [1] .

3.2 The n eed for s trategic o versight of p lanning

3.2.1 The Planning service must deal with a whole series of issues which have more than local significance. Strategic planning is the only way of tackling issue s such as energy or climate change which need s cross border approaches. Renewable energy is one example where a mass of purely local decisions is unlikely to meet our European or international obligations . A number of important mechanisms which had begun to address this issu e have recently been abolished.

3.2.2 Firstly, the Government has now removed central targets for housing delivery by abolishing the National Housing and Planning Advice Unit (NHPAU). The NHPAU offered independent advice to ministers and regional and local planning bodies on the levels of house building required to meet affordability. This advice was subject to rigorous testing through the regional Examination in Public process. Without such advice, the link between strategy and local delivery is broken, and the cause and solutions offered by the NHPAU through research has been lost.

3.2.3 Secondly, the Government has revoked the Regional Spatial Strategies and abolished the regional tier of governance. This has removed the long term vision and strategic oversight of local planning and delivery o f services . This may impede the sustainability of local development in terms of coherence and integration, in particular where functions extend beyond administrative boundaries. A practical example of the problem would be how , under a purely localised planning regime , controversial development for energy projects or for the Gypsy and T rave l ler community or asylum seekers might be delivered? The Government has outlined a proposed system of incentives for some form s of development but it is unlikely that this system will be sufficient enough to overcome ingrained local opposition.

3.2.4 The TCPA believes there is a need for greater clarity about the roles of local and strategic planning. Central government must embark on a comprehensive national framework which can deal with a wide range of social, economic and environmental infrastructure issues. Such a framework should have a clear legal status in the overall plan-making system [2] . There must also be an obligation on local planning authorities to invest in providing local people with the information they will need to make decisions – on why we need more homes; on where we need them; and on what mix of tenure we need to meet local demand. This would require a new relationship between officialdom and local communities, supported by measures to improve community involvement and engagement – so-called ‘capacity building [3] .

3.2.5 Thirdly, the Sustainable Communities Act 2007 has reporting and accountability mechanisms which could be better utilised. Mechanisms includ e Local Spending Reports and Sustainable Community Strategies . These provide a channel for local pe ople to ask central and local government to take action according to locally-agreed priorities and hold local authorities to account .

3.2. 6 T he TCPA believes achieving sustainable development will and must continue to be the overarching framework within which planning and other local functions operate. Local Agenda 21 began to address these issues by helping local authorities to broaden their focus from local stewardship to global citizenship with local communities having expressed a vision of the future in which a protected environment, a prosperous economy, and an included society exist simultaneously.

3.3 O pportunities and limitations of c ommunity participation

3.3.1 The localis m agenda seeks to devolve power down to the lowest possible community scale. In general this has to be the right approach for decision making but if only if a number of detailed and difficult issue s are resolved. Planning decision making is a litmus test for loca l is m because of the positive opportunities it creates and the negative challenges in terms of bad neighbo u r development. The ambition of Conservative Party’s ‘Open Source Planning’ policy to transfer of powers and responsibilities from professionals to members of the public raises two sets of important questions.

3.3.2 The first relates to how communities are to gain access to the skills and capacity to shape plans effectively. For example, t he Greater Manchester area contains around 1 , 000 neighborhoods which would make effective local planning units. Each requires proper resources and professional support. To give communities the responsibility for planning without the means to meet those obligations will lead to further exclusion, inequality and cynicism by the hard-to-reach groups . The approach risks a two tier system of planning between affluent and engaged communities and those whose lack of resource and social capital make it hard , if not impossible , to participate. The lack of clarity about what , if any , resources will be given to communities is compounded by the skill set of the planning profession. Previous Committee inquiries had uncovered that the planning profession continues to lack the skills and capacity to effectively deliver on the sustainable communities agenda [4] .

3.3.3 The second area of question relates to an honest assessment about the limits to community participation [1] . We should be honest that there are and should be limits to local decision making. The local planning process will have to comply with important national and European legislation on equality, disability and the environment which impact on both the process and outcomes of plan making. Local planning will also have to acknowledge wider strategic needs agreed democratically at the national level. Crucially it must take responsibility for providing the social needs of their own community and the wider needs of other communities. We also have to be honest about where the resources will come from to deliver such plans. These constraints are real and provide the context for community empowerment measures.

3.3. 4 Policy-makers must also realise that while the decision-making process should be as open and participative as possible, ultimately this participation is bounded and limited by the need for elected politicians to make final decisions in ways that are accountable to the wider commu nity. The TCPA Tomorrow Series paper ‘People, Planning and Power’ concluded:

" New localisation may have benefits for service delivery but does not offer a vital clarity of purpose nor a coherent vision that can achieve the reconnection with communities. This can only come with a holistic view of the balance between representative and participative democracy and recognition of the importance of clear civil rights which enable opportunities for meaningful, participative decision-making " [5] .

3.3.5 The TCPA remains concerned that there is insufficient rigo u r in the localis m agenda to ensure that it i s properly related to existing models of local democracy or properly recognise s the level of resources necessary to ensure meaningful change. There is also a lack of acknowledgment that purely locali s ed decision will not always reflect the wider public interest or the rights minority communities.

3.3. 6 Th e Place Survey and Citizenship Survey illustrate s how localism can , and should , be best taken forward to reflect local circumstances. Results from the latest Place Survey for England [6] found that there is scope to improve how local people can be involved in local decision-making processes, and there are already people involved in volunteering work and/ or belonging to groups who make decisions affecting their local area. However the key question remains which is whether there is capacity to sustain further decentralisation of public service delivery without increasing resources and professional support. The degree to which there is an appetite to take full responsibility for planning at the local level is unclear. It is safer to assume that people want a system which is sensitive and responsive to their needs. If that is the case then changing the culture of planning while leaving its current structure broadly in place would yield the most cost effective results .

A summary of the survey results are highlighted below for the Committee’s information:

- 45% satisfied with (taking everything into account) how their local council runs things

- 33% agree that the local council provides value for money.

- 29% felt they could influence decisions in their area.

- 27% would like to be more involved in local decision making.

- 23% gave unpaid help to groups, clubs or organisations, at least once per month in the previous 12 months.

- 14% in the last 12 months have belonged to groups who make decisions affecting their local area.

4.0 Specific Comments

The extent to which decentralisation leads to more effective public service delivery; and what the limits are, or should be, of localism

4.1 T he limits of localism should be based on the most appropriate level and scale of planning for sustainable development. This means marrying bottom-up planning for localism with a robust strategic framework of investment and infrastructure.

The lessons for decentralisation from Total Place , and the potential to build on the work done under that initiative, particularl y through place-based budgeting

4 .2 The TCPA recommends that the Committee examine detailed results from the Total Place pilots in the form of a report by the HM Treasury. Total Place is a relatively new initiative and like any new initiative and programme of work, must be given time. In particular the TCPA highlights the following key lessons:

· Put the correct structures in place

· Scope for financial savings from shared management and joint working arrangements

· Avoid duplication of services

· Improve communication between national and local government

· Flexibility and recognise that a "one size fits all approach" will not work

The role of local government in a decentralised model of local public service delivery, and the extent to which localism can and shoul d extend to other local agents.

4.3 The TCPA believes that local government should continue to take on the leadersh ip role with greater, not less , responsibility. Local government and its elected members will and should continue to be held accountable for local decisions. The TCPA’s view is that balance must be struck between a system of democratic representation and the Government’s desire to move towards democratic participation.

4.4 The issue of resources, capacity and skills of professionals and local communities, in particular community and voluntary sector organisations, will continue to be a major concern. The TCPA emphasises the chronic nature of a skills deficit already in the planning profession as identified by the Egan Review for skills in delivering sustainable communities and previous CLG Select Committee inquiries. Decentralisation and localism must not be associated with the systematic degradation of the role of professionals in delivering complex services and undertaking technical work such as those associated with planning and development.

T he action which will be necessary on the part of Whitehall departments to achieve effective decentralised public service delivery;

4. 5 The TCPA emphasises t he need for clarity in the differentiation of roles in Government setting quality standards for consistency across the country and in the relationship between local government and potential service providers. In addition to points raised in Section 3.2, there will be a continuing need for scrutiny of emerging legislation to avoid the unintended consequences of legislation on vulnerable groups of the community.

What, if any, arrangements for the oversight of local authority performance will be necessary to ensure effective local public service delivery.
4. 6 Please see comments under Section 3.2: Need for Strategic Oversight of Planning .

October 2010