Localism Bill criticisms rebutted

The DCLG has published a paper rebutting some of the major criticisms that have buzzed around the Localism Bill, particularly as it has come to prominence again via its Second Reading in the Lords. It bears reproducing in full with some brief comments in italics. 

Localism is a cover for cuts 

Both coalition parties have been talking about localism for many years – the concept of the Big Society pre-dates the financial crisis. However, we do believe Central Government has become  too big, too interfering, too controlling and too bureaucratic.This has undermined local democracy and individual responsibility, and stifled innovation and enterprise within public services. We will look to redress the balance of power and responsibility through our decentralisation programme, of which the Localism Bill is a key part.

The Localism Bill will produce a massive postcode lottery Allowing different parts of the country to do things differently is not the same as a postcode lottery. A lottery is random and people on the receiving end are powerless. Our decentralisation programme and the measures in this bill are actually the opposite – it is giving people more power than ever before over decisions that affect them and their communities. No doubt people will choose to do things differently, but through choice, not a “lottery.”

Although doesn't evidence show that the "post code lottery" does exist in the provision of some health services for instance, with patients feeling exactly that, i.e. powerless at the apparently random nature of how cuts are impacting upon some locales and not others. Fire Service budgets also show the damaging effect of a rush to cut  with quite startling variables in impact across the country. 

Localism and Growth are not compatible Decentralisation is about liberating the natural desire of local communities to become more prosperous. The notion that communities choose decline and reject prosperity is perverse, wrong-headed and not based on evidence. Evidence from the UK and overseas shows that local communities need the right mixture of powers, incentives and accountability to maximise their prosperity. Decentralisation is new to this country and long over-due. The previous administration devolved with one hand and with the other hand bound regional and local authorities ever tighter in the red-tape of national targets, requirements and guidelines.

This might be semantics, but decentralisation is not "new to this country." Perhaps in terms of the Bill there might be an argument for newness, but as a model of participation, empowerment, engagement and involvement it is well known, widely practiced and properly understood by many local authorities and other public bodies.  

The Bill bypasses local government Through this Bill we are freeing local government from central and regional control, scrapping national targets and removing pointless and prescriptive duties which have held local government back. In addition, we are giving local authorities the long awaited general power of competence which will transform the relationship between central and local government by allowing local authorities power to do anything apart from that which is specifically prohibited.

However, the Government is committed to the radical decentralisation of power and control from government to individuals and local communities. This is not simply about replacing the big central state with the big local state – it’s about putting people back in control of decision making or, where this is not possible, devolving power to the lowest appropriate level. We’ve got to hand power directly to people. We will seek to incentivise people rather than punishing them. We trust people to make things better by taking charge of their lives.

Interesting how the notion of "incentivise", which at first sight seems quite a positive notion, but is felt in another dimension of people's lives, as damaging cuts to individual benefits, reduced access to resources and now the threat of cutting housing benefit if you are unlucky enough to have a 'spare' bedroom. The incentive all to quickly seems to be of the cattle-prod variety.  

The Bill is centralist not decentralist The large majority of the SoS powers either provide technical detail or simply replicate powers contained in previous legislation. In addition there are a number of key ‘barrier busting’ powers that enable the Secretary of State to remove burdens or further delegate powers to local authorities or local communities at a later date. For example in the General Power of Competence the barrier buster in clause 5(1) gives Secretary of State the power to remove unnecessary restrictions and limitations that are restricting the use of the general power where there is a good case to do so, subject to safeguards designed to protect vital services.
Finally, there are the usual powers such as to make transitional, consequential and savings provision. Taken together, these powers and the Bill itself will shift power from the centre to local authorities, communities and individuals.

The Localism Bill is a NIMBYs’ charter Giving people greater control over the planning system will transform community attitudes to development, particularly if neighbourhoods benefit directly from growth through the New Homes Bonus and the reformed Community Infrastructure Levy.

Locally grounded planning will not stifle development but will provide the certainty and confidence businesses need to take forward their plans for growth and expansion. They will act as a catalyst for development and will attract and encourage the investment, economic growth and housing that Britain needs.

There are a myriad of reasons why Britain requires a "catalyst for development, investment, economic growth and housing" and and many, inter-connected ways to achieve it. Maybe the devolution suggested will deliver this "development," but will the price be random differentiation, lack of consistency, reduced equality and a mish-mash of decisions with no apparent coherence, although meeting the localist mantra?

The abolition of housing targets will mean the shortage in housing will only get worse 

A key weakness of the Regional Strategy approach was the assumption that imposed housing targets would be incorporated into plans by local authorities and communities, and that the market would deliver them. But only 22% of local planning authorities have translated the RS targets into an adopted Core Strategy. Regional Strategies did not build homes and we now have the lowest level of house building since 1924.

It's a bit disingenuous to blame Regional Strategies alone for "the lowest level of house building since 1924"! Does a banking-precipitated financial tragedy which sucked in over half of the previous government's deficit spending not have a role to play in this developing (affordable) housing new build crisis?

Incentives are just bribes We need to get the country building again – but this time with the support of local communities rather than in the teeth of their opposition. That’s why we are introducing powerful new incentives that give communities a reason to say yes to new development. Local finance considerations, such as the New Homes Bonus and the Community Infrastructure Levy, may be taken into account in relation to planning applications – but only where they are material to the particular application being considered. As before - unacceptable developments should not be given consent just to unlock incentive payments, and a matter can only be considered material to a planning application if it relates to the development and use of land, and to the merits of the application under consideration.
The point is that local authorities are best placed to judge the need for housing development and we trust them to continue to plan for it. And we are introducing incentives to help them achieve that vision. The New Homes Bonus introduces a powerful framework of incentives and new homes delivered now will be rewarded under the scheme. This will encourage local authorities and communities to increase their aspirations for housing and economic growth and to deliver sustainable development.
In the meantime there are planning permissions in the pipeline that will support supply whilst the new incentive scheme beds in.

Neighbourhood planning will end protection of the green belt The idea that local people will want to damage green belt in their neighbourhood is daft. Residents are always keen to protect the environmental quality of their local area. Neighbourhood development plans will be written by communities who are likely to be strong advocates for safeguarding their landscape and natural environment. Residents are also best qualified to understand what needs protecting in their local areas.

We are working with DEFRA to introduce a new designation that will allow communities to protect green spaces of local importance. National policy on the environment will be a basis upon which plans can be rejected as inappropriate. And we expect environment and climate change to be a strong feature of the National Planning Policy Framework.

"Local people", "communities" and "residents" are not homogeneous groups and can be and are composed of many factions and interests, including powerful landowners, large-scale property landlords, significant developer businesses and speculators - none of whom are necessarily the most staunch advocates for either "safeguarding their landscape," or alternatively keen to promote, say, new affordable housing. These will be some of the tests for the freeing of the planning system.

The Bill signals the end of social housing as we know it Rather than ending or abolishing social housing we are determined to make it work for those families that are in genuine need. It is difficult to argue for the case against reform when there are more empty bedrooms in social housing than are needed to tackle overcrowding; and only 49% of working age social tenants are in work (compared to 71% in 1981). We need to make better use of the homes we have, and to give councils flexibility to take decisions that will lead to better long term outcomes. To do this the Bill will

• Keep tenure for life for existing tenants, but give social landlords the additional option of granting shorter tenancies to new tenants subject to a minimum of two years. Social landlords should not have to give tenure for life to those facing a short term crisis.
• Keep the duty on councils to house those facing a housing crisis, but change the rules that mean people owed the duty can insist that their needs are met by giving them a social home for life.
• Provide that all new secure and flexible tenancies include a right to one succession for spouses and partners, but give landlords the flexibility to grant whatever additional succession rights they choose
• Give councils the power to decide who goes on their waiting lists to better reflect local priorities and realities
• Make it easier for social tenants to move within the social sector
• Support social tenants to achieve sustainable home ownership
• End the discredited Housing Revenue Account subsidy system, in favour of a more localist approach, allowing council landlords to plan long term and enabling their tenants to hold them to account over how their rent is spent.

It's interesting how a massively reduced and still declining resource, the health and vibrancy of which was probably fatally compromised by a previous Tory government, e.g. RTB, the prohibition on public sector house building and so on, remains the site of so much governmental intervention. Yes, there are matters that require, and have required, action for years but some of the poorest residents seem set to have even more intervention applied to their sector without the hope of the overall quantum of the stock increasing anywhere near significantly enough to provide choice, price and the variety we should expect in 2011.


Want to join a developing learning community of public sector professionals and access high quality support? Then please visit  www.theopenchannel.co.uk