What does localism mean for planning in South Yorkshire. Workshop 1: Planning at the local level

Transcription

1 What does localism mean for planning in South Yorkshire Key questions considered: Workshop 1: Planning at the local level What role for neighbourhoods and communities within planning? What skills and capacities exist within neighbourhoods and localities to carry out planning? What support is required by different localities? Who might offer this support? What challenges face localities in carrying out planning under the proposed regime? What role for local authorities in localism? How to forge new relations with local communities to ensure support for the local plan as well as those exercising the right to plan? How to communicate the requirements for neighbourhood planning? How to resource the new planning and support neighbourhood groups? Participants: Andy Inch (UofS), Malcolm Tait (UofS), Steph Oliver Beech (Doncaster), Helen Sleigh (Rotherham), Ryan Shepherd (Rotherham), Laurie Platt (Sheffield), Maria Duffy (Sheffield), Nick Ward (Rotherham), Adam Harvatt (Doncaster), Andy Van Vliet (Sheffield), Jordan Butler (Doncaster) Workshop 2 Presentations: The aim of the second workshop will be to further think through the challenges of localism and what skills/ resources/ capacities are required to meet them. It was agreed that each of the authorities will present a short, informal summary of how the key challenges outlined beow can be met with the skills and resources currently available to them. This need only be five minutes long, and we propose that it responds to the following questions: How do you understand the key points below and the challenge they pose in your authority? Are there any other key points you would add to the list? What capacities/ resources exist to meet these challenges? What issues seem most difficult to address? Why? It is hoped that this will help to identify areas of strength/ weakness or of particular concern that might be the basis for future collaborative work.

2 Main Points from the Meeting Below, following a brief introduction, we outline some of the key themes raised in the workshop, outlining the concerns and issues associated with them. We see these themes as central to thinking through the implications of localism for planning in South Yorkshire. We would welcome any thoughts about additional points or themes that we may have overlooked. A Brief Introduction to Localism The current Government s statements regarding localism stress two linked themes: 1. Decentralising powers and responsibilities from regional administration to more local administration, and from local authorities to smaller units (parishes, neighbourhoods) 2. Enhancing democratic engagement moving decision making out of the hands of professionals and politicians within established regional and local administrations and giving powers to smaller elected bodies (such as parishes) or voluntary organisations operating at a neighbourhood scale. Associated with these two themes are broader issues of opening up government to scrutiny, diversifying service provision, and increasing local control over public finance. There are also various moves to enhance the ability of communities to gain from development, framed around incentive schemes such as the New Homes Bonus. More recently, promotion of growth agendas has tended to focus less on enhancing community engagement, and more strongly on removing planning controls which, Government argues, hinder economic growth. Whilst there may be tensions within these proposals (for example, over the role of local authorities, and between community engagement and growth), the themes outlined above are likely to be influential in reforms of planning. These themes are not new. Ideas of localism can be traced back to the emergence of the state as a more unified, comprehensive body that started to intervene in the organisation of cities in the 19 th Century. Reactions to a top down state have emerged since this time, and have been adopted by both those on the left and right of the political spectrum. This has produced various initiatives to decentralise power away from established bodies, with particular intensity since the 1960s. These include councils such as Stockport, Walsall, Islington, Tower Hamlets, Rochdale, and Oldham trying out initiatives to devolve power to area based committees or forums. Some of these have had (informal) planning powers. Similarly, the GLC attempted to devolve some power to various voluntary bodies in the 1980s. The difference at the present time is that localism is now presented as a national policy, and that it comes at a time when local government is seeing the most significant funding cuts for many years. This certainly raises challenges for many working in planning, but may also provide some opportunities to rethink how we engage with our communities and tie this into broader planning objectives.

3 Growth versus Localism One of the key challenges discussed was how localist ideas fitted in with agendas for growth. This was most keenly felt in response to the Budget which had attacked planning as a barrier to economic growth and seems to jar with proposals for more community engagement. One particular tension that was talked about was within South Yorkshire, and within council boundaries. There was a clear recognition that some areas were likely to see more growth than others within the sub region, and that residents experiencing higher growth would be likely to shout loudest in opposition to further growth. These areas might be those most committed to producing neighbourhood plans. Other areas, which were likely to experience much lower forms of growth, would be less inclined to become involved. There was some discussion as to how we engage with higher and lower growth areas, the resources required, and whether attention should be focused on those areas with lower growth expectations, or whether we should instead attempt to stimulate a more positive approach to managing growth in those areas likely to experience highest levels of development over the next few years. This approach could use CIL income, by ringfencing it for particular neighbourhood improvements. It was also noted that planners often do not analyse what is up for grabs in areas, making it more difficult to persuade communities what might be changed. Some noted that in many cases, communities already have some skills and a vision for the future of their localities, something that could be drawn upon in stimulating and managing future growth pressures. Another issue raised by the issue of growth is working with the development sector: One of the key issues raised was that there might be scope for local authorities to mediate between competing developers. This might provide an alternative model, in which developers compete to gain approval for development schemes. Whilst it was noted that there may be issues in encouraging developers to consult communities, and for some communities to overcome their fear of developers, there was some discussion as to whether this could provide an alternative model. Most significantly, a key concern was that core values of planning, particularly of ensuring a fair, transparent, democratic process needed to be addressed. Representation: The idea of representation was initially presented by Malcolm Tait as a key challenge of localism. It was also implicitly and explicitly present in several different ways throughout the discussion: One key sub theme was the representativeness or otherwise of participants in consultation events, and by extension of possible neighbourhood forums. There is a danger that this agenda plays into the hands of those who shout the loudest, favouring NIMBY, self interested actors, and the areas in which they are disproportionately located. The checks and balances that have been built into the proposals in the Localism Bill may militate against this (since neighbourhood plans

4 cannot propose lower levels of development than those framed in the local plan), but the implications for resource allocation may be significant (see below). It was suggested that a key principle had to be a search for legitimate means of establishing collective concerns, rather than individual interests/ opinions. This also raises concerns about how local localism will be e.g. is this limited decentralisation or genuine bottom up empowerment, with implications for how legitimate decisionmaking is viewed as being by local communities? The question of how and whether neighbourhood forums can be made democratically legitimate was also raised. It was noted that the proposals remain very vague on this, and the role of Ward/ Parish councillors as opposed to local people is ill defined. The danger may be that this represents a further erosion of the legitimacy of local representative democracy. The feel good language of localism masks this to some extent with its connotations of a locally derived consensus. It was noted that consensus rarely exists and in this context the question of how decisions are reached becomes crucial. It was also noted that arrangements introduced under the previous government (e.g. mayors or cabinet style governance arrangements) had done much to sideline the role of backbench, ward councillors. The central imposition of elected mayors proposed in the bill threatened to further this process. Within local government these were essentially centralising measures that worked against more local representation. A further issue concerned the scope provided by existing structures to make neighbourhood planning representative this seemed to vary across and within authorities (see scale as an issue). It was felt that there was some potential to engage communities better (e.g. in more representative fashion) by consolidating the amount of consultation authorities were engaged in, since community development was likely to be more effective when people were not constrained by the often confusing limitations imposed by e.g. what can be achieved through the planning system. If the challenge of localism is seen in more radical terms it may potentially undermine the legitimacy of elected local government as it has been conceived until now. In part this is a product of local government having become a weak target. The need for authorities to engage in publicity campaigns was noted with some exasperation but the question of how to re establish the legitimacy of a collective public interest, established through representative democratic channels and embodied in local government, seems important to consider. If this goal was to underpin a local authority led approach to neighbourhood planning could it produce substantially different/ better outcomes? Resources Resources were understandably seen as a key issue. There is a huge pressure on local authority budgets that makes the challenge of adapting to change all the more difficult. Authorities felt that staffing was now at a level where it threatened delivery of existing commitments, let alone new obligations. Key points included:

5 The pressure to get more from less will require creative thinking, and whilst difficult it is necessary to consider whether this presents some opportunities e.g. is there scope for rationalisation of consultation efforts across authorities? Could this prove more effective in engaging local people? Framing creative responses to these challenges may be key to shaping the agenda in practice. The experience, skills and resources available within local authorities was considered. There was some concern about whether planners had the skills required to engage in real community development work, and awareness that there was a wide range of community development activity going on within each of the authorities. This amounted to a body of experience and expertise that could be drawn on. In some cases it was felt that localism had already been achieved through previous initiatives mapping what has been and is being done, where, and how this can be made better use of, may prove helpful. Resources were also considered in a wider sense, however, as central to the challenge of neighbourhood planning. Resources available within, and for communities were a source of concern: It was pointed out that communities had both a moral claim to participate in decisions that affected them, but also a great deal of important local knowledge that could improve places. It was, however, acknowledged that different communities and different members of communities had differential access to resources (financially, but also socially and in other terms), and that effective community development work could often be very resource intensive. How to ensure an equitable localism was therefore a key concern. Could and should resources be targeted strategically even though it might contradict the principles of localism? What resources would be available to support different neighbourhoods to produce plans? How to ensure that the most organised and demanding areas don t use all of the available resources? How to avoid processes that favour the views of existing over incoming and future residents? What kind of places would be most likely to have need of a neighbourhood plan? Should areas of change or relative deprivation be favoured? It was noted that these questions are highly political. In Sheffield the Labour administration s area based initiatives had been overturned by the incoming Liberal Democrats in favour of a principle of more equal access to initiatives and services. The limits to what governance and planning processes can deliver were also considered: For example in relation to the ability to provide communities with a local shop if this is what they wanted. It was noted that planning remained essentially reactive to the investment decisions of private actors. Their resources therefore remain crucial, but development pressure is weak in many parts of South Yorkshire, and unevenly distributed. The potential impact of private resources being used to fund neighbourhood plans and development orders was also considered. The capacity to mediate/ shape the use of these resources is likely to prove significant to ensuring good planning

6 outcomes and requires careful consideration in relation to new powers and practices. The potential impacts of the much more uneven landscape of plan coverage that these resource dynamics might produce also needs to be thought through is it desirable? How can it be managed to ensure equitable outcomes? Existing relations with communities Related to many of the other key themes is the question of what kind of relations exist between authorities/ planning departments and different communities. There is real diversity of experience in different areas based on previous initiatives/ levels of reliance on public services and a range of other factors: Part of this seems to be a question of mapping the multiple different contact points that different services have with different communities at different spatial scales. It also relates to the question of representative democracy and the value of elected members at the local level, as well as direct contact between planning (or other services) and local communities, and the different structures that exist to support this activity (e.g parishes/ community assemblies etc). There is a need to try and shape positive relations and to communicate effectively to people what they can expect from local government services and interventions. At present these relations are characterised as sometimes difficult, e.g. where officers perceive residents as NIMBYs, or residents see the council as the root of a wide range of different problems. Skills and capacity are required to manage these relations better. Scales of Planning A key theme that ran through the discussion was of the different scales at which planning operated, and ensuring that there was some coordination between these. In particular, getting the scale right and understanding the scales at which action could be taken was an important challenge posed by localism. One of the key aspects of localism was that it could be in tension with the strategic role of planning. Whilst local input was clearly important, it was argued that there need to be checks and balances to ensure coordination and some equity between areas. This was particularly important because planning occupied a role to mediate between competing interests. Localism challenged this role, with its emphasis on allowing localities to define their future. The fear was that the checks and balances to this local freedom provided by planning were also being removed. A key issue regarding strategic planning, was getting community interest in thinking at this scale. Some talked of their experience of trying to stimulate participation in more strategic planning issues, but felt that many localities were focused on dealing only with development in their area. Generating meaningful discussion about strategic matters was seen as highly resource intensive. A second issue was the task of prioritising at which scale to devote resources and effort:

7 It was recognised that there were grey areas between bottom up localism and resource imperatives to decentralise and shed power. Furthermore, there were fears that forward planners were used to dealing with abstractions, but less comfortable in engaging with smaller scale issues. A key issue was of understanding how neighbourhoods work, so that sensitive schemes could be developed in conjunction with residents needs and priorities. There had been some experience of this, with detailed consultation on small schemes, involvement in masterplanning and the work of bodies such as Sheffield s Community Assemblies. Thanks once again to everyone for contributing to a very stimulating initial discussion. We hope that we will be able to take forward these key themes in the remaining two workshops and beyond.