Monday, August 22, 2011

Localism Bill

Does anyone have any thoughts on the planning aspects of the Localism Bill? This will enhance the position of parish councils, such as Swanage Town Council and enable any local group of 21 people or more to demand official recognition and support and draw up a "neigbourhood development plan" As a result, it is claimed, "Neighbourhood planning will allow communities to come together through a local parish council or neighbourhood forum and say where they think new houses, businesses and shops should go – and what they should look like." (source "A plain English guide to the Localism Bill")

The idea of a couple of dozen random and self-selecting and unelected citizens being able to take control of planning looks pretty scary to me. You notice the word "or" in my quote. You can set up in opposition to the parish council and there does not seem to be anything to stop a determined developer setting up a group if they can persuade 21 noddies to join it and writng their own neighbourhood plan for their patch of the town.

On the other hand it looks like the residents of a conservation area could put themselves in a better position to safeguard the area against unsympathetic changes, an area in which it must be said PDC have been more than a little lacking. A problem we have discussed on here in the past.



Posted by Anonymous to swanageview at 21/8/11 10:23 PM
Posted by at
Labels:

39 comments:

SillyWhim said...

It seems self defeating to allow a parish council to be bye-passed by a collection of sub-groups with its bailiwick. Of course Swanage is a bit of an extreme as it is one of the largest parish councils in the land; hence there could well be a justified argument to support such groups. While we all have our grumbles about STC from time to time I think it is fairly responsive to petitions and grievances from groups and individuals. It will be interesting to hear what others think.

22/8/11 8:57 am
Anonymous said...

As I read the "plain English" version of what the Bill proposes there is nothing to stop any group of 21 plus in a neighbourhood demanding recognition and the right to produce their own plan. The idea seems to be encourage grass roots organisations and the sponsors of the Bill think some of these have tended to get the cold shoulder from councils in the past. Hence there does not seem to be any power for councils to pick and choose which they will work with. Parish councils. like our own town council, seem to be put in the same category as community groups on the one side with "proper" councils on the other.

22/8/11 8:09 pm
Anonymous said...

Let's look back and decide had this bill been passed say 50 years ago how different Swanage would look? Would the Grosvenor Hotel still be there? Quayside Court? The Mowlem? A marina? The library?

23/8/11 9:37 am
Anonymous said...

A good question. This doesn't take the place of the existing system but seems to add a neighbourhood level. The thinking seems to assume that peole locally will want more not less building to go on. An interesting change in that guidance given to planning authorities is now that development should enhance their surroundings. A recent application in South Road fell foul of this.

23/8/11 12:24 pm
SillyWhim said...

Having read three very interesting comments, I say why not? It seems these groups will have no statutory powers (as far as I interpret the proposal's intent) and as such will be able to provide the Council with some very useful input. There is no harm in that; I wonder if our Council members would welcome it?

23/8/11 10:02 pm
Anonymous said...

There is more to it than that. To quote from the "Draft National Planning Policy Framework" Section 49

"Neighbourhood plans

49. Neighbourhood plans give communities direct power to plan the areas in which they live. Parishes and neighbourhood forums can use neighbourhood plans to:
• develop a shared vision for their neighbourhood
• set planning policies for the development and use of land; and
• give planning permission through Neighbourhood Development Orders and Community Right to Build Orders."

This creates two routes to planning permission, the existing one and a new one through a neighbourhood forum. The document makes it clear that the restraints on the latter are pretty much the same as those on the planning authority in terms of ensuring that applications meet planning criteria so it is not intended to be a free for all. All very strange. To my nasty suspicious mind it would be a lot easier for a developer to bamboozle, con or simply buy the support of an ad hoc and unaccountable neighbourhood group than a district council.

The possibilities for a clash between a parish council are interesting. If both can give planning permission that is three bodies in competition. My only hope is that this gets amended out of recognition before it becomes law.

23/8/11 10:57 pm
David Furmage said...

So what would we all like to see get built first in swanage?

24/8/11 1:37 am
Anonymous said...

A working Harbour, with room for visiting yachts and the lifeboat.

24/8/11 8:54 am
Anonymous said...

KFC

24/8/11 12:40 pm
David Furmage said...

A wavegaarden in King Georges Park;)

24/8/11 1:09 pm
Anonymous said...

http://www.direct.gov.uk/en/Nl1/Newsroom/DG_193140

It's about far more than just planning.

24/8/11 5:38 pm
Anonymous said...

Looks good - it would also be good that people were responsible for their own communities and not able to pass the buck and moan all the time.

24/8/11 5:54 pm
Anonymous said...

I don't quite understand the last comment. This Bill aims at enabling communities to do things but that does not make anyone responsible for what happens in their community. Neighbourhood forums look like being another body for people to moan about if that is what they want to do. Needless to say it omits any definition of community. It looks like ministers have some sort of Ambridge mind set and can envisage the good villagers wanting to take over the village pub or build a few cottages on green fields despite the planning authority opposing them. It would be interesting to know what STC and PDC members think of it. To some extent it reflects existing tendencies. PDC has been supportive of rural exceptions where land has been available for example. Any bids to take over running the beach on a community basis?

24/8/11 7:50 pm
Anonymous said...

I think that last post has lost the plot ....

Any amount of talk about

"Local referendums

Local people will be able to launch a local referendum on any local issue. Local authorities and other public authorities will have to take the outcomes into account in decision making."

The Swiss model.

24/8/11 10:02 pm
Anonymous said...

Not sure what I have lost the plot on. The intention seems to be to have both non-binding referenda on local issues and also to permit neighbourhood groups to dish out planning permissions provided they have produced a neighbourhood plan which has scored over 50% in a referendum.

It was the interesting implications of the changes to planning that I was thinking of when I started this topic rather than the other stuff which, frankly is a complete hodge-podge.

It is all expounded in double talk as well. To take on example, apparently giving public sector owners of social housing offer homes on short leases is a way of giving power to the people so far as ministers are concerned. To me it looks more like giving more power to social landlords who will be given the power
of deciding whether to renew their tenants leases. Apparently if your earnings go up you should loose your home!

24/8/11 11:29 pm
Anonymous said...

"Apparently if your earnings go up you should loose your home!"
Great idea! Free up the social accommodation for the truely needy, and not expect the community in general to provide a house for life for folk who perfer to spend their cash on consumables.

25/8/11 8:15 am
Anonymous said...

In my original posting I asked for views on the planning aspects of the Bill, however, there is some interest in other parts of it so let us look at that last posting.

The view expressed reflects the tory vision of social housing and is one way of looking at it. Have you thought it through in the longer term though? It seems to regard social housing as a form of poor relief or an emergency provision. So what happens if someone has lived in a housing association house for many years and then has the offer of a better paid job or their child leaves education and enters employment. They have to find another home and if they lack a few tens of thousands, 100% mortgages being a thing of the past, go into private rented accommodation with precious little security of tenure and a higher rent. In those circumstances increasing your income ceases to be a rational choice. So what happens is that if you want to keep a roof over your family's head you are stuck in a low pay job for ever. This creates precisely the sort of barrier to mobility that in other respects the coalition purports to be attacking.

What the Bill offers is a superficial solution that I think owes more to keeping in with right wing tabloids that have run horror stories about people in council houses having a Jaguar parked outside for longer than I can remember. Before Jaguars it was probably a pony and trap.

25/8/11 9:38 am
Anonymous said...

I do hope Durlston Castle turns out to be a wonderful restored and modernised building which attracts many people to the area -cus the time being spent, the money that must be being spent and the number of tradesmen working up there make it look like Dorset's longest gravy train to me.
Could localism have stopped this?

25/8/11 9:52 am
Anonymous said...

"So what happens is that if you want to keep a roof over your family's head you are stuck in a low pay job for ever" so sell the property to the tennants when they can afford it and use the procedes to build new social housing. Thank you Margaret.

25/8/11 10:01 am
Anonymous said...

Except that the blessed Saint Margaret of the Markets expressly forbade the use of council house sales to build or buy replacements. The point of the exercise was to get the state out of housing. Had you forgotten?

25/8/11 10:58 am
Anonymous said...

Absolutely, if the local councils provided the land, of which they have lots, developers could build social detached houses, make a profit, and sell them for around £120,000.

25/8/11 12:34 pm
Anonymous said...

I just wondered where the lots of land owned by pdc is. Can you enlighten me? When did they acquire it?

25/8/11 1:46 pm
Anonymous said...

Well PDC could start by buying the 13 acres of church opposite Jewsons and then granting themselves planning permission for solely social housing (if they are genuinely concerned). STC has the two playing fields next to the Old Grammar school site. There would be no problems spanning and building over (or under) the car parks at say south beach or the one opposite Westport House. Even the boat park perhaps. The town council car park and buildings; the Coop and health centre, the new church being built in Herston, and the like, all should have residencies above. The girt roundabouts on Wareham bypass could provide apartments, as could virtually every public building now I think about it.

25/8/11 3:40 pm
Anonymous said...

Some interesting ideas but do you seriously think pdc can get access to the funds? Why not put this to your councillors and let us know their response which would be interesting. I was not aware that capital funding had been made available for this type of home building.

25/8/11 4:59 pm
Anonymous said...

No funding necessary for many of the plots, just grant planning permission and let the developer get on with it.
So for eg allow a retirement home business perhaps McArthy and Stone to build 50/50 social/for sale retirement flats on the tennis courts/bowling green site. Relocate sports facilities on the flat roof. Encourage elderly couples/singles in long term social housing to move into new flats to free up larger houses.
Players get a great view, and insentive not to knock balls into the road.
The rounabout developments would look great like giant versions of the Swanage library. Maybe three storeys with communal stuff in the basement. . Access via private underpass. 8? flats or more.

25/8/11 5:51 pm
Anonymous said...

Fine, so the first thing to do when the Bill passes into law seems to be to establich a neighbourhood forum or two and produce plans incorporating these things, them out it up for a referendum.

25/8/11 6:04 pm
Anonymous said...

In the few years I've been in Swanage I've learned these talk shops are a waste of time. No marina, no train to London, no sports centre.
But we spend £6M on a derelict pub in Durlston?
I think this localism is going to be bad.
Will second home owners and tourists be able to vote? They are our customers, they should help choose what happens here. It sounds like a NIMBYs' charter. A bit of strong visionary leadership is required, not more committees and referendums where only old residents turn out. It's like trying to get change on the Pier or at the Mowlem.
We elect councilors to bring about change, and the officers to bring it about, so we can all get on and do our jobs and look after the family. What we need is a motivated council.

25/8/11 8:07 pm
Anonymous said...

Whether any of us would prefer to be led or not the government claims to be converted to the power to the people cause. This is a remarkable thing from the party of leadership and authority but there you are good people, power is yours or will be shortly.

25/8/11 8:39 pm
Anonymous said...

Neighbourhood Forums cannot be set up alongside, in place of or in opposition to town or parish councils. The Department for Communities and Local Government state,
'Under these arrangements plans will be taken forward by Parishes or 'Neighbourhood Forums' in places without Parishes.
The local council will have a duty to provide support and to ensure compliance with other legal requirements.

28/8/11 9:32 pm
Anonymous said...

So with the overlapping membership of town and district councils it amounts to no change in Swanage really. Interesting. Its hard to believe that either body is going to embrace the idea of planning as an activity that is supposed to determine future events rather than as a conformity filter for proposed buildings. What we have now is very much like trying to navigate a car by looking at the mirror and not the road ahead. Or am I being unfair?

29/8/11 1:48 pm
Anonymous said...

Re 25/8 8.07.
Just why are 'we' spending £6m on the disused pub (castle?) at Durlston. Doesnt sound like something the dragons might invest in !

30/8/11 11:34 am
Anonymous said...

quite

30/8/11 12:46 pm
David Furmage said...

I think the money on Durlston is a good thing. It brings in alot of people to lots of activities which I and my family have been on. And the star gazing nights are awesome. Will be nice to see the new centre once it's all done:)

30/8/11 5:35 pm
Anonymous said...

yes Dave, but £6M quid?
£600,000 maybe

31/8/11 8:54 am
Anonymous said...

That is what it costs to overhaul a large old building. It had been neglected for years by successive leaseholders and had structural problems. What option was there? Let it fall down?

31/8/11 9:22 am
Anonymous said...

well they didn't repair Corfe Castle did they
and would it continue to be an attraction if they did?

31/8/11 9:34 am
Anonymous said...

Its all much more complicated than it sounds! To keep it simple 'just do it' !

31/8/11 5:53 pm
David Furmage said...

Thing is we all have got these millionaire dreams of what would be good for Swanage ie marinas , wavegardens , luxury flats , sports centre , and so on . But would it not be an idea to start of with small things like showers along the sea front , fill in pot holes on road , solar power bins that crush rubbish instead of our poxy little bins along the seafront. Pedestrianise the seafront bit properly instead of just putting gates at either end. Just a few small ideas:)

1/9/11 11:41 am
Anonymous said...

I agree about pedestrianising the seafront but when PDC did some consultation with the public the majority of those who turned up were against changing it. I think we are crazy to devote so much of the towns prime real estate to a utilitarian purpose, i.e. a road, but that is the will of the public with nothing to suggest that those who did not bother to turn up think any differently.

1/9/11 3:46 pm

Post a Comment

Subscribe to: Post Comments (Atom)