I found it surprising and maybe disappointing that the very long list of questions raised by MHCLG in its proposed reforms to the National Planning Policy Framework and other changes to the planning system consultation document (30 July 2024) didn’t include any in relation to neighbourhood planning.
I suppose I shouldn’t be churlish – if it were not for the Localism Act 2011, Duncan Field and I would not have started our L is For Localism blog that year (all posts lost to the ether it seems. Oh well). The blog led to the publication of our Localism and Planning book the next year (don’t buy it – we haven’t updated it). And after we killed the blog around that point, L is for Localism was undoubtedly the blueprint I used when starting up simonicity in 2016.
But, come on, why are we questioning the good sense of the abolition of regional strategies (section 109 of the 2011 Act) and contemplating the reinvention of a strategic level of plan-making, particularly by way of the Government’s promised Devolution Bill, whilst accepting without question the additional “neighbourhood” plan-making tier introduced by way of section 116 of the same Act?
Valid questions to ask might be:
- On balance, does neighbourhood planning help or hinder the delivery of new housing?
- On balance, does neighbourhood planning materially improve the quality of new development?
- Is neighbourhood planning widely seen as giving communities a voice which they would not otherwise have via their borough or district council, or unitary authority?
- Is the bureaucracy and legalistic processes inherent in neighbourhood planning under the 2011 Act off-putting to communities and/or does it impose material financial burdens and resourcing difficulties for the authorities that have to administer it? Indirectly, does this favour communities with a particular demographic?
- Are neighbourhood referendum turn-outs indicative of a healthy democratic process?
- If they are to be retained, should neighbourhood plans remain part of the development plan or, given that they are not tested for soundness as local plans are, should they just be a material consideration in the determination of planning applications?
- Can respondents point to widespread use (indeed any use) of the community right to build or of neighbourhood development orders?
- Are neighbourhood forums sufficiently democratic or is there a case for encouraging communities instead to rely on or create parish or town councils if they consider that a neighbourhood tier of governance is desirable in their area?
You may wish to add to this list.
This thinking was sparked by Dan Mitchell posting on LinkedIn about the Perranzabuloe neighbourhood plan referendum in Cornwall this month, where the turn-out was just 7.5%*. Shouldn’t we be asking what low turn-outs like this are telling us and in fact shouldn’t there be a minimum turn-out required in order for the plan to be approved? I’ve been googling around and have found other neighbourhood plan referendums this year with turn-outs of less than 15%. Until now, I had thought that the process of elected police and crime commissioners was the democratic process with which the public is least engaged but even in the Police and Crime Commissioner elections on 2 May 2024, the turn-out in England was 24% . By contrast the turn-out at the 2024 general election was 59.7% and that was the lowest since 2001.
Don’t people know what is going on, or don’t they care? If the former, the system is ripe for abuse by those who do actually vote. If the latter, isn’t this all just a waste of time and money?
Oh I’m going to be attacked for this one but doesn’t someone have to ask these questions?
Simon Ricketts, 12 October 2024
Personal views, et cetera
*After I posted this, Ben Castell pointed out that the turn-out in Perranzabuloe was in fact approaching 15% – the maths on their website appears to be incorrect: “Electorate 5099, ballot papers issued 680, turnout 7.5%”! My core point however remains.
SIMONICITY 
Interesting questions Simon.
I know nothing about planning. I was a soldier before joining the parish council in 2017 and shortly afterward, agreeing to take on a neighbourhood plan (Burghclere) and later, a review. So Iâve done 2. And I certainly have a view on neighbourhood planning.
NPs do neither. The delivery of housing is – as you well know – down to the developer. What a NP can do is to facilitate the delivery of housing by providing the land and context in relation to the ALP. Take Burghclere as an example. The ALP mandated us to provide 10 dwellings. We had already provided 6 before we got started. Our consultants, ONeill Homer (from whom I hope you will hear), advised us to be bold. We produced a plan with a site for at least 15 (the developer thinks he can squeeze in 17). Now the developer has put the site up for sale (does that answer your question?) and is in an argument with the LPA about âaffordable housingâ. Nothing has changed our local communityâs dire opinion about developers. And this of course is completely out of our hands.
Again, what a strange question. This is completely outwith the NP. But letâs stake a step back. In both our first NP and the Review, we had included Policies that specified net zero standards and ambitions. At examination, despite other LPAs adopting these standards, PINS Examiner took out these policies with B&DBC support. So not for want of trying. We included a formal design code in the Review. In theory then this should help the quality. But we have no control over the output. We know, as the Council Leader has told us personally, that there is huge variance in the quality of new housing in the Borough. A NP has no power to oversee the quality of development. A question for you. Should it? How will it be resourced? Who by?
Yes. And we have a number of examples where, very sadly, both the LPA and more sadly, PINS, have not taken the full weight of a NP into account. There are some Inspectors that fundamentally donât understand NPs. Thatâs a serious charge and I stand by it. To answer your question – yes – but as Iâve described the view is jaundiced. On the whole, better to have a NP than not.
Hah. Youâre asking whether we in the affluent South are better equipped to deliver a NP than communities in the North. I understand there is a paper that suggests so. Having run two and advised 5 other parishes on neighbourhood planning I see no reason why ANY community canât deliver a NP. It requires time, commitment and leadership. Support from the Local Authority is massively important. Not all do so. The bureaucracy is awful and itâs very process driven. Could it be improved and simplified? Yes. Could any community do it, anywhere is the country? With time, commitment and leadership – yes. I absolutely donât buy the N v. S argument. Itâs a cop-out.
I note your concern. Some NPs have so polarised some local communities theyâve not made referendum. We made strenuous efforts to ensure the community was engaged and voted. Should there be a higher threshold? See Brexit – that horse has bolted. Iâd be interested in othersâ views. I canât find our turnout – sorry – but it was fair to middling. But over 80% supported it.
I note: https://www.gov.uk/guidance/neighbourhood-planning–2 https://www.gov.uk/guidance/neighbourhood-planning–2. I have also referenced the cases brought up by Zack Simons. Given soundness is more technical this is a question for politicians and the Department. I have no issue with the requirement to meet the Basic Conditions. Anything more technical would require specialist support and if youâre looking for more work, and take it out of the hands of the community, please go ahead. This will further add to the widespread distrust in the planning system (perhaps how to regain that might be a worthy question for you legal types to consider too). I might add that doing the neighbourhood plan has had a positive impact. Reading where people do object, they often reference the NP. I think thatâs healthy.
I wonât/canât answer your other questions. But seen from here some PCs view NPs as panaceas and will prevent speculative planning in their towns or parishes. We all know itâs not as simple as that. But please donât forget that NPs also can provide a vehicle for doing other stuff (a sports club or more parking etc). Itâs not all about housing. I think thatâs valuable. If you devalue a NP however, you remove the incentive to engage in local planning and influencing decisions. That would be a pity.
Finally, I have always said that we should do more. I stood down as Chair in May due to cancer and said in my farewell address we should aim to revisit our NP and add to our housing stock by doing another. The PC is in broad agreement with this approach. Itâs been shown to work. Unfortunately our LPA has cocked up Reg 18 and we will again be subject to speculative developments for housing in the wrong places and wrong numbers. This is hugely frustrating. And writing NPs is expensive, stressful, and very time-consuming.
My message is that we can fix that. Make it easier for us to do so.
Even though I am firmly retired (again!) I love your blogs. Keep them coming.
R
>
LikeLiked by 1 person
Thanks so much for this nuanced response. What a frustrating story although I admire your persistence. All the very best.
LikeLike
Thank you Simon for yet another excellent and thought provoking blog post/article.
I have long felt this country is over governed as new tiers are added without due consideration to removing some existing ones.
In my view Neighbourhood Planning is open to “abuse” with small groups and “cliques” being in control thereby subverting its laudable objective of giving a (further) opportunity for input into decision making at the neighbourhood level- this does not mean NPs cannot be inclusive and identify important issues at the local level but one has to ask, as you do, why cannot these be channelled through the Local Plan process- there is no logic to NPs forming part of the Development Plan when they have not been scrutinised in the detailed manner which LPs are….
Local Politics undoubtedly has impacted on the NP process and there is often tension between PCs, TCs and LPAs and many people are too busy dealing with more important life and family problems to have time and energy to engage in NPs and all the work this entails.
So the list of Questions you pose should definitely be included in any Consultation regarding the re-introduction of the Strategic Level of Planning though do wonder if this tier is one which will exclude meaningful input at Local level….
Keep up the good work and thought provoking views.
Regards
George Vasdekys
LikeLiked by 1 person
Dear Simon,
I read your Neighbourhood Planning post with interest and it made me think about our Neighbourhood Plan, for Southwick, in Wiltshire.
The Chair of the NP Steering Group is also the Chair of the Parish Council and he recently made an interesting decision to remove all those members of the NP Steering Group who live opposite or adjacent to potential development sites ( see extract from the Parish Council Minutes below). This removal includes the Chairman, although I am certain he will continue to steer the NP via his friend in the village who does not live near to a potential sites. In this way, the Chairman can retain control of the NP, whilst getting rid of anyone who may cause trouble!
Are you aware of any other NP Steering Groups which exclude people who live next to potential development sites?
[cid:image001.png@01DB1FC0.84CF4680]
This decision appears at odds with the Wiltshire Council Neighbourhood Plan Guidance Document which states that:
[cid:image002.png@01DB1FCE.0B7802A0]
The Chairman of the Parish Council has also made several changes to the NP Steering Group Code of Conduct. Whilst this item is included on the Parish Council Meeting agenda, there is no justification of why the changes are being made and the changes are not discussed, or shared with the NP Steering Group.
In the case of Southwick, the Neighbourhood Plan is controlled by an individual who has total control over the process and seeks to exclude anyone who may not agree with his vision for the village.
A site for houses has been allocated in the NP but aside from the normal planning consultation process for the application, there has been no separate consultation process with the developer, where local people have had a chance to engage. The developers have been given carte blanche to develop the site as they want it, and have extended the development outside of the NP allocated site (see image below, which shows the allocated site in red and the area for wildlife mitigation in green).
Despite over 50 objections and not a single letter of support, the Parish Council are supporting the scheme! Apologies for my rant, but I am very disappointed with the Neighbourhood Planning process as it seems open to corruption and in the case of Southwick, has been a missed opportunity to put forward an inclusive development, which people in the village actually want.
[Map Description automatically generated]
Best regards, Jo
LikeLike