Localism Implementing the Red Tory Agenda

Thanks for this thoughtful post. I followed it (I think) right up to the point where you say :-
"we can now expect to turn to an alternative way of making this judgement which involves the direct input of the concerned community"

I can easily imagine asking a community "what"-type questions. I think "when"-type questions are much less obvious candidates for a distributive approach.

Can you expand on what it is you're expecting to happen as a result of handing over the timing decision to the community ?

Richard, in response to your question I am tempted to say "chaos". I dont think that a "when" question is necessarily beyond the grasp of a community, I have known places where the locally expressed view was that a period of consolidation was needed before further development should take place. However following a discussion with local GO officers this morning I does not seem likely that we will be handing over these kind of "calls" to the community, but wil still be relying on statistical monitoring. They could be wrong though and if so I wondered if anyone had any idea what that would look like as i am not sure I do.

One of the problems with a localism agenda is that it assumes that the beneficiary of the Planning system is its existing residents. This is often not the case. One of the purposes of Town and Country Planning is to provide for future social and economic needs by releasing land before it is needed. For example with regard to housing the objective is usually to accommodate newly forming households, or households moving into the area from somewhere else or households that have not yet formed. We are not normally planning for the existing adequately housed or adequately employed. They are not part of the problem we are trying to solve and yet they are the ones that will bear the impact of construction and changes to their environment. Since most people do not welcome change in situations where they are already reasonably happy, they are bound to be resistant to a Planning system that aims to develop land. Since they are likely to be classified as the ‘locals’ under the new narrower definition of ‘community’, it is their voice that is likely to influence Planning policy. Unless there is a popular local regeneration agenda or some other specific problem that might be resolved by building new houses, the locals are bound to oppose proactive planning policies, aren’t they? Nor can I see existing residents changing their attitude by the thought that building new housing will make their Council slightly wealthier ?

I agree with Peter's assessment especially his last point, but supposing we see an extension of the approach now proposed for the NHS, where local neighbourhoods, rather than the the local council receives the "incentive" and we the planners work in a direct partnership alongside local people and are given budgets to do so. The proposed restructuring of the NHS is entirely consistent with Blond's ideas for solving "broken Britain" through "associative relationships". Despite the few examples he gives (such as the John Lewis Partnership) there does not seem to be any examples of sufficient scale and currerncy to suggest that this way of working would address the issues raised by Peter such as "households moving into the area from somewhere else or households that have not yet formed". I think that used to be called strategic planning.

Having read all this professional input, I am left somewhat disappointed at the lack of any suggestion that elected members have a major role to play in the new localism agenda. All contributors seem to have siezed on the negatives of seeking community input when it comes to anything to do with planning. Yes, there will indeed be an element of NIMBY and anti-everything response as always and you will never overcome that. However, the early involvement of elected members in a managed and focussed way can deflect much of the negative public response that occurs. Councils seem to continually avoid member involvement until the whole thing becomes a public outcry or a planning application, thereby missing numerous opportunites to test the water and gain valuable input. I'm not advocating a policy of getting members to go native far from it. However, even if members are initially negative (without being pre-determined if that is an issue), this can give you the basis for exploring alternative proposals and better ways of doing things. Waiting until it becomes a valid application or worst still gets to the DC committee is always the worst way to manage community engagement.

I think the post by the last contributer is a good one as members are there to represent the 'community' in its widest form and have a mandate to do so. What worries me in all this is that it assumes a cohesive community view, which from my experience is almost never achieved. You often have the vocal minority who perceive they are adversely affected by a proposal, and a far larger silent majority who either don't care one way or the other, or who could (either themselves or sons/daughters etc) potentially benefit from development (eg from affordable housing, employment development creating more jobs) but who do not have the understanding to see these longer term wider benefits for themselves or the wider community or who are not fully engaged by the consultative process.

Members are at least in a position to consider such issues as these and have leadership to take them forward. The vocal minority can sometimes seem like a majority, however, and ity can come down to how politicians see development influencing their votes at an election - this requires strong leadership to see more unpopuklar proposals through the system, even when they would have a wider benefit.

The contributions above have identified what many of us have known for many years, that appropriate consultations with local communities are quite complex activities and require more than just meetings with local residents and "community organisers".

Our experience is that local residents who are consulted are not nor will be fully representative of other existing or future members of the community. This is particularly true in relation to disabled people where designs and proposals with serious access barriers have been agreed as a result of a lack of understanding or sometimes because residents are not interested. We hope that decision making by communities will include consultations with groups representing equality and diversity issues and communities and it is is unfortunate that this could be assisted by regional networks which are now at risk.

If planners were able to take a more proactive role in promoting good design and access statements to take account of more than wheelchair users, and to require developers to show that they have consulted, as was envisaged in the early concepts in the 2006 guidance, this will cover some of the consultation costs but planners and members could play a key role ensuring that information about groups are available and that there is a broad and relevant representation.

Dear All
A amjor missing element in the debate so far (as far as I can see) is engaging the construction/development and landowner sector, without which nothing will happen anyway. In my Local Government past, applying the general purpose of planning as 'the control of land in the public interest', customers or stakeholders could be defined as anything from future generations whose expectations could only be guessed at, through investors to community groups and individuals. I suspect that the development industry will only follow 'community' opinion if it makes it financially worth doing. Attempting to place all responsibility for leadership on new development on the good sense and philanthropism of established communities and their representatives will not actually deliver the investment which is inseperable from the whole purpose of planning, or tap into the imagination, creativity and entrpreneurial skills available ouside the public sector. A lot of effort could go into darwing up new strategies that few will be prepared to enact.

It would appear that M Eccles of Liverpool CC will be in a position to advise us all soon - the Government has today announced that Liverpool will be one of the 4 pilots for introducing Open Source Planning, presumably ahead of the legislation. Interesting times ahead.

Simon

I will do my best to pass on anything we learn.

Dierdre, you make a good point, but we need to take this further.

Clearly, in a localist era where communities/Councillors (presumably) can "just say no" planners and developers need to work together to ensure that the necessary new homes and jobs are provided. This means that those existing residents, the majority of whom have a home and job must be persuaded that the development being proposed will benefit them. The promised financial incentives to Local Authorities may help, but direct, specific and clear improvements to communities arising from development will, in my view, be key. I think that alterations to the current policy/regulatory limitations to section 106 and the retention of CIL (or a similar, possibly less bureaucratic replacement) will need to be part of that reorientation of planning policy and development practice.

Simon, I don't think any of us see this as a mandate to just say no and then wait to see what bribes are offered to change minds!
Given the continued use of the PPS and LDF as the basis for planning policy, should we not just assume that this 'open source planning' idea is more about communicating with the public much sooner and far more effectively than we currently do?
The real trick here for me is to spend time investing in educating members on what the goals and policies of the council are. In my experience, far too many councillors, including those in control, continue to see the Local Plan or LDF as something the council (officers) have 'done' to the communities they represent, rather something they, the councillors, have been involved in creating and therefore have responsiblity for.
As long as an 'us and them' situation persists, you will always have the potential for confrontation. Failing to bring the elected members on board, allows them to claim no responsiblity for the policies contained in the LP/LDF. If, god forbid, we were to end up with a pick'n mix planning system, where everything was indeed at the whim of members and the community, then I think we would indeed be on a road to nowhere.
Finally, you have to keep in mind that, unlike officers, members are there at the will of the people and often steer a fine line between the electorate and the policies of their council. In the abscence of policy and a sound understanding and at least some commitment to the goals and ambitions of the council, then any elected member who chooses to go against the wishes of his or her community, would effectively be commiting political suicide.
If a wooley take it or leave planning process is the result of these changes, then the professionals are going to have to work their socks off convincing members of the merits of continued development - something that to date, has been done via central government dictate i.e. RSS - as I said earlier, done to them not by them. I'm not saying that this is a good situation, but it is the reality and the sooner we work out how to manage it the better! Over to you guys and gals!

Simon my reading of the David Cameron speech here in Liverpool suggests that the Big Society "vanguard" roll now being asked of Liverpool will focus on cultural activity rather than putting Open Source Planning to the test directly. If something turns up incidentally then I shall undertake to tell all about it. Turning to the post above I agree that members and the public can feel isolated from the activity of making plans but having a tier of planning above the distrcit is not the only or sole reason for this. Here in the NW the RSS is seen quite differently by most, though I would acknowledge not all councils, in fact only 9 of all NW councils finished with housing numbers other than the ones they had wanted. Perhaps it is time to revisit the official lables we use in our work - unles I imagined it when I first started my plan-making career everyone seemd to "get" what a Local Plan or even a "Unitary Development Plan" was.