Is the Localism Act a lawyers’ charter?
Author: Michael Burton, the MJ |
A round table debate organised at think-tank Localis with Berwin Leighton Paisner discussed the question: is the Localism Act a lawyers’ charter?
Some of the key points at the debate, which took place on December 13, included whether the Act meets the six steps to decentralisation, whether it is a step forward, and does it give genuine powers to local residents. The discussion looked at the general power of competence and the impact of planning changes. The general conclusion was the Act is merely version 1.0 not the definitive answer and much depends on legal interpretation.
Among the points made by the participants were:
The Act is a positive move, testing the limits (e.g. Dudley pushing for an Enterprise Zone-like affair), however, from policy to legislation, something might have been slightly lost – there is more work to do.
It should have been called the ‘Centralism Bill’, ultimately financial issues are key and these will not be tackled by the Act
The secretary of state retains too much power.
Regardless of the Act, local government needs to change the mindset of members and take back power from the civil servants.
The potential for ‘good’ councils doing sensible things is being held up by the provisions in the Act.
Is there some duplication between the role of parishes and local members? For local areas themselves to figure out the best arrangements? Some areas are looking at devolving planning powers to parishes already (e.g. minor developments/extensions), ‘rubber-stamped’ by an officer.
Many councils are already using well-being powers, etc, to be innovative in localities. However, more needs to follow.
Councils are risk averse, partly as a result of legal challenge.
The Act needs testing at the High Court to tidy up and amend areas that require clarity -could lawyers be a tool to spread localism? This could help define troubling terms (e.g. neighbourhood) – however, others questioned why it was necessary to define these at a national level.
Local authorities will still need lawyers as there is still significant potential for legal challenge despite the General Power of Competence.
Wellbeing powers didn’t see enough take-up. GPoC is rebuilding the system from the bottom up, wellbeing having just been an evolution of previous practice.
Pleased to see a role for parishes, who are big winners alongside charities and community groups.
Another question was on how the Act will empower communities. Key points in response were:
There is an ambiguity between local government and ‘the community,’ and the interests thereof.
Community groups are unlikely to stand a chance against competitive business tenders, so why give them the opportunity?
People should be thinking beyond the Act, with initiatives such as the new best value guidance, contract tracker, etc, which are all helping to change the culture and make it easier for communities to engage.
Use of charging powers was mentioned as being limited by the law (e.g. Westminster parking charges) -and there is uncertainty over how far this would be changed by the Act. Again, this needs testing.
Local authorities are likely to see more challenges as community groups will have a greater vested interest after they have a bid rejected in their area, whereas commercial companies are likely to simply move on .
For right to challenge, etc, we need to move away from a tickbox procurement exercise to intelligent commissioning.
One participant was worried that single interest groups will hog the agenda.
Another question posed was whether the Act will reinvigorate the planning system to make it ‘clearer, more democratic and more effective’ and can it usher in a positive new era for social housing? The key points made were:
Social housing provision will not be improved by the Act – it’s a local authority’s role to define; need a change in mindsets; seeing council versus social tenant tensions regarding building.
Neighbourhood plans, the point was made, involved an ambiguity over precisely what area was covered. This could lead to overlapping plans, and legal challenges.
Land for employment is just as important as that for housing – this needs balance.
One view was that lawyers acting on behalf of developers would tear apart planning decisions based on the Act.
Some participants believed that parishes will start to think about saying yes to development, if developers worked with them to find the right local solution.
One person doubted that parish councils could be made pro-development with only 10-15% of CIL being devolved.
Quality information and guidance needs to be made available for parishes and communities to take advantage of the Act.
Localis chief executive Alex Thomson said: ‘The Localism Act represents a positive step forward along the path to real local autonomy – and was acknowledged as such during a broadly positive discussion .
But there is still plenty more to come, and we need to ensure that local authorities and communities seize the opportunities that the Act provides, both to improve their areas, and to make the case for further localism.’