The UK's devious way to get people to nod to development

Set in the fictional – and bizarely sinister – isolated small northern town of Royston Vasey, it began with the inhabitants taking drastic measures to prevent a new road from being built to link them to ‘civilisation’. It also produced the national catchphrase: ‘a local shop for local people’.

Thanks to Prime Minister David Cameron’s campaign for the ‘Big Society’ legislation is now in place which gives ‘local people’ a bigger say in the destiny of their community – without having to go to the extreme lengths employed in Royston Vasey!

The Localism Act, which became law in November 2011, has devolved decision-making powers from central government into the hands of individuals, communities and councils. It is already beginning to change the way council services are delivered and how important pieces of land and buildings are sold and developed.

In spite of offering the people the opportunity to control local public spending, to determine the allocation of social rental housing or to save important community land and buildings from development, it is the planning process that is giving the greatest momentum to the Localism Act.

The Act allows for groups of people – including business – to help shape the area in which they live and work. To achieve this, they can apply to form a local neighbourhood forum for the purpose of formulating a plan to shape development and to deliver community benefits such as playgrounds or traffic improvements.

Before a local government authority can incorporate these area specific neighbourhood plans into its own planning strategies, the proposals have to be formally inspected, tested and subject to a referendum within the area.

The first such vote took place last week in Cumbria, when residents of 17 parishes in the Upper Eden area voted overwhelmingly in support of a neighbourhood plan. Interestingly, the 33.7 per cent turnout was 18 per cent higher than the 2012 police and crime commissioner elections. ?

Eden District Council is now obliged to ratify the area plan in its overall development plan, thereby making local views an integral part of the planning process – or so it seems.

Before those of you who are still spitting nails over Portelet and the proposed luxury housing development at Plémont, get too excited at the prospect of a ‘people’ power’ planning charter, be warned that neighbourhood-planning forums are not a means to block development. The UK model does not allow for a local forum to go against a council’s plans for new homes.

Taking the example of the Island Plan, say the States in approving this planning blueprint agreed to build 240 new homes, 20 per parish. If neighbourhood plans existed on parochial lines, then all each of the forum groups would be able to do is ‘influence’ where the homes are built and the design. They would not be able to argue for a reduction or stop development from taking place.

While the UK localism model allows the public a greater role in the planning process, it has an ulterior motive – and that is to encourage development, rather than prevent it.

What the British government hopes is to persuade residents to accept more building in support of its national policy for new development to encourage economic growth. Therefore, the only gain is that those who will have to live with these new developments on their doorsteps get a say in where they are built and in the design.

This is a tad devious for my liking, and nothing but a ruse to make sure that development plans – which are likely to be controversial and inflame public opinion – get through unimpeded.

Another facet of the Localism Act that has relevance for Jersey at the moment is the ‘Community Right to Bid’ which allows local groups to nominate land or buildings which they think are of ‘community value’, while not unduly restricting the owner’s rights. Although this doesn’t guarantee that a building or piece of land will be saved, it compels the owner to give six-weeks’ notice of the intention to sell.

The Act can also be used to delay a sale for six months to give a community group, which expresses an interest to buy, adequate time to raise the funds.

Some will argue that the Island already has neighbourhood-planning forums in the shape of parish assemblies. But no matter how strictly such gatherings are controlled, taking a vote of hands is not an exact poll in the scientific sense, simply an expression of the opinions people who could be bothered – or were encouraged – to attend.

As the Island prepares for its second referendum, why not extend this democratic process to the planning process so that Islanders can at last have a say in how this little rock is developed? In the UK, the Localism Act can’t be used to object to individual applications, only to proposals for large-scale estates, whether to meet the needs of first-time buyers and social rental or for the private market.

However, why not go a step further than the UK and give residents who form a bone fide neighbourhood group the right to veto development if they are united in their opposition, and especially if applicants are proposing to build in a sensitive location of ‘national’ importance?

In an Island under threat from development like never before it cannot come quick enough.

Paula Thelwell