IS GOVERNMENT LISTENING - AND WHERE IS THE DEMOCRACY AND 'LOCALISM'?

In the January 'perspectives' article for the North West Transport Roundtable (NW TAR) website, I flagged up a potentially bleak year ahead from a planning and transport policy viewpoint. Amongst other things, I expressed concerns about how accountable and representative the new Local Enterprise Partnerships (LEPs) would turn out to be and fears about the promised forthcoming changes to the planning system which, it was being said, would favour economic interests - probably to the detriment of the environment. I expressed an earnest hope, however, that "fingers crossed, it [my gloomy outlook] is all wrong".

As we move into the last quarter of the year, I am sorry to say, things are far worse than ever I imagined they could be.

All the LEPs in the North West have now been established and only one (Cheshire and Warrington) has awarded one seat to the voluntary sector. None have awarded an environmental seat and none have awarded a seat to Town & Parish Councils, the first tier of local government. Whilst leaders of principal authority councils are represented on the LEPs, they are the only democratically elected members and the major stakeholders in every case - by far - are businesses. Transparency is already an issue, as is the lack of any formal channel to influence decision-making, even though the powers of these bodies is expected to grow. In a half-hearted attempt to placate criticisms to this effect, most LEPs are moving to setting up fora for wider stakeholders to "have a voice" but - as there is no central requirement for them to take any notice of these - they will be no more than talking shops.

Last month, LEP representatives from around the country attended an inaugural 'LEP Summit' where they were told by government ministers to "challenge Whitehall for the powers and freedoms they need". Now it is being mooted by the Department for Transport that 'Local Transport Consortia' of LEPs and local authorities should take over responsibility for making the final decision on Local Major Transport Schemes, ie. those over £5m. (but not those that qualify as major infrastructure schemes). This would give businesses - but not local communities or elected Town and Parish Councillors or environmental organisations (even statutory ones) - a major say in allotting £1.5bn. of funds across the UK which previously the DfT has taken responsibility for.

The Coalition Government have talked much of 'Localism' but their actions in respect of planning have been totally the opposite. The general perception by those who have respected the UK's planning system is that it is falling into an abyss. It is a very bleak time indeed.

The previous government, via the Planning & Compulsory Purchases Act, changed Local Plans and Urban District Plans into Local Development Frameworks (LDFs) with less precise Core Strategies that could only be challenged at the Examination in Public (EiP) stage if objectors felt able to take on the 'soundness' of the entire plan. An almost impossible task for individuals and underfunded non-governmental organisations (NGOs).

The present government has not proposed reverting to anything approaching the previous system whereby dissenters could take on individual parts of the plan and argue for improvements. It is assumed that, if all the required consultations have taken place, then the LDF Core Strategy must be 'sound'. But, what if a local planning authority has merely regarded the consultation process as a box-ticking exercise and it has not listened to what people have had to say?

Another change introduced by the last government is the way that major infrastructure schemes, including transport ones, are to be decided in future, effectively taking away the right of local people and non-governmental organisations to turn up at local planning inquiries and state their case in a manner which was well established and understood. The Infrastructure Planning Commission (IPC) was set up and this is just now starting to process its first cases. However, even before this system has bedded in, it is all about to change again - but not in a way which will make it easier to access or more 'local'. The present government is going to take the planning process for major infrastructure projects (including all Highways Agency schemes) to within the Planning Inspectorate. They will make recommendations to the relevant Secretaries of State for the DCLG and/or the DfT, who will make the final decision.

Attempting to interact with big infrastructure projects through the planning process is still going to be quite different than it was before. It will be perplexing to people on the ground trying to engage with it and the intention is still to speed up decision-making on big schemes. Interestingly, the new system does not require the promoters of projects to engage with environmental NGOs such as the Campaign for Better Transport or the Regional Transport Roundtables. So, from our point of view, it does not feel very inclusive.

You have to wonder where the real opportunities to influence decision lie. Take, for instance High Speed Two. It is not as though the government has said it thinks this may be a good idea but, before committing to it, it wants to undergo a very thorough consultation. It has consistently stated it will deliver this project and it is irrevocably wedded to it. Despite massive opposition to the first stage, and an attack on the transport and economic models used for HS2 by a consortium of modellers, the government says it is pressing ahead and is promising 'consultation' shortly on the 'Y' network, which will come through the North West. But, what point 'consultation' if no-one is listening?

In addition, principal authorities and local communities have been told that they must accept what amounts to almost a planning free-for-all and Enterprise Zones have been announced without any local consultation. Here in the North West we have had thrust upon us an Enterprise Zone at Manchester Airport (in addition to one in Liverpool). This, despite the fact that the panel of planning inspectors who sat in judgement at the Regional Spatial Strategy EiP, concluding the airport should not become a commercial hub in its own right. Regional Spatial Strategies (RSSs) are in the process of being scrapped via the Localism Bill but this does not invalidate the evidence presented at the EiPs and the testing processes they went through. This point applies equally to the housing figures that were agreed following much debate and scrutiny. These are also to be ignored, with local planning authorities being encouraged to "build, build, build" regardless - it would appear - of environmental capacity constraints or transport implications.

The Draft National Planning Policy Framework, with its presumption in favour of saying 'Yes' to "sustainable development" (which is undefined) was launched for consultation on July 25th. (Consultation closes on October 17th). It declares that all LDFs must comply with it or they would not be acceptable. Unsurprisingly, it provoked a storm of hostile reactions which have evolved into national campaigns led by national newspapers and NGOs such as the National Trust and the Campaign to Protect Rural England, all deeply concerned that the lack of any protection for the non-designated countryside, combined with a lack of a sequential approach to land use, would lead to unchecked urban sprawl and unsustainable transport movements. Leading planning lawyers have been writing to newspapers warning that they expect to have a field day trying to sort out the vaguaries of the NPPF.

However, instead of the outcry having elicited promises of a fundamental re-think to the policy, it prompted the Chancellor and the Secretary of State for Communities & Local Government to re-iterate their determination to carry through the reforms and advice was issued by the Planning Inspectorate to its inspectors that they should regard the Draft NPPF as a 'material consideration' when making their decisions. As a result, a number of contentious planning applications have already been given the go-ahead based on the NPPF ..... And all this is whilst the NPPF is still purportedly being consulted upon!

Meanwhile, the Localism Bill continues its inexorable progress through parliament, bringing with it Neighbourhood Plans. The advice being given about these is not to bother embarking on one unless there is a desire for more development over and above that indicated in Local Plans. (N.B. LDFs are increasing being referred to as 'Local Plans'). Outside of areas that are parished, any 21 people can come together and produce a Neighbourhood Plan, (eg. directors and employees of development companies) and, whilst the original Bill said that, in parished areas, only Town & Parish Councils could produce Neighbourhood Plans, a subsequent amendment allows businesses to lead on them, even in parished areas. Prior to the Bill being enacted, the first business-led vanguards are already getting underway. Nothing is said in the Bill about the 'Third Party Right of Appeal' which was promised before the election, ie. the right of people affected by a major development to appeal against a planning permission given for it. (Developers currently have the right to appeal planning decisions but no-one else does). Nor does the NPPF tackle the issue of Third Party Right of Appeal - a commitment in the Conservatives' 'Open Planning' document before the General Election.

None of this feels as though there is going to be more power and decision-making handed down to the very local level. And environmental NGOs whose opinions were given some credence during the period of regional working are losing fora through which they can express their opinions. That said, the North West Transport Roundtable has continued - as its website testifies - to submit evidence to House of Commons select committee inquiries, respond to public consultations and make other submissions as and when opportunities arise and we can find the capacity and the openings to do so. We do what we can when we can but Government at both the national and the more local level needs to listen. We have a lot of cumulative experience and many sensible things to say and deserve a genuine hearing - as do our counterparts all over the country and the national NGOs who reflect our views.

It is does not inspire confidence when a government launches a consultation, as it has for the Draft NPPF, and then - on receipt of loud criticisms - it embarks on a hostile attack on those who are daring to criticise the massive changes it proposes and declares it is going to press on with "the battle" regardless any way! As one child might say to another: "You started it!".

Can we please have a more thoughtful and more mature approach from the government? Will it re-instate a sense of balance in relation to economic, social & environmental issues? Will it ensure bodies given responsibility for dispersing public funds are democratic, transparent & accountable & required to make decisions based on environmental capacity? And will it demonstrate in its actions (and not just words) that it is taking on board what people have to say when they respond in their thousands with strong messages to events and consultations?

Lillian Burns
Convenor
North West Transport Roundtable