Empty gestures? A review of the discourses of ‘localism’ from the practitioner’s perspective

Abstract

Little has been written from the practitioner’s perspective about the discourses of localism permeating local planning practice. Even less has been written about the tangible local economic outputs of such planning initiatives legislated through the Localism Act (House of Commons, 2011). As such, this paper fills a gap by reviewing the practicalities of the neighbourhood development plan (NDP) process; a localism tool heralded as a mechanism to allow local communities to choose where they want new homes, shops and offices to be built. Reflecting on the 858 NDPs currently underway across England and Wales, the real drivers, practicalities and implications of this new policy layer are critically analysed from the practitioner’s perspective. The paper concludes that behind the rhetoric of the neighbourhood planning discourse is a covert political objective of enabling local economic development by facilitating private sector-led growth (through ensuring fewer local objections to development proposals and more planning approvals). However, quite the opposite, the paper reveals a dangerously misplaced emphasis on empowering localities through NDPs. This is because in reality experimental NDPs have a limited and uneven scope and at times may be inflammatory, increasing anti-development sentiments. Instead, it is proposed that an adjusted policy focus is adopted which facilitates genuine community engagement with the local development planning process.

Re-imagining neighbourhood governance: the future of neighbourhood planning in England

“…Given the consistently high 'Yes' votes (on average approximately 88%) coupled with relatively modest turnouts (approximately 33%), some planning officers have questioned the role of the referendum, particularly given the high costs associated with election services in larger and more complex areas . Such considerations take on added significance at a time of local government retrenchment with LPAs expected to 'do more with less' (Ludwig and Ludwig, 2014). Although early fears about LPA intransigence (Farnsworth, 2012) have for the most part failed to materialise (although there do appear to be some notable exceptions), capacity issues mean that many LPAs have struggled to engage constructively with communities while still producing or updating their local plan .…”

“…Despite the promise that neighbourhood planning holds for some, for others it constitutes part of a wider agenda to de-professionalise planning (Lord et al, 2017), contributing as it does to the competing and often contradictory priorities that local government receives from the centre (Ludwig and Ludwig, 2014). This has led to calls for sustained funding for direct professional involvement in neighbourhood planning in order to maintain the policy's efficacy (McGuinness and Ludwig, 2017).…”

London governance and the politics of neighbourhood planning: a case for investigation

“…Further; 'this localism seeks to replace New Labour's technocratic government, but it appears to be doing so with just another form of anti-politics: naïve, populist liberalism' (Clarke and Cochran 2013 p.17). It has been argued that the Localism Act is simply a covert means of promoting the private sector (Ludwig and Ludwig 2014). Davoudi and Madanipour (2015), adopting Foucault's notion of 'governmentality', that is to say the art and technology of government, warn of the dangers of the well organised and the well-off capturing decentralised planning.…”

When rhetoric does not translate to reality: Hardship, empowerment and the third sector in austerity localism

“…While the Big Society concept was shelved, there is more or less consensus in the literature that the commitment to a rhetorical localism and its principal elements has continued apace (Bailey & Pill, 2015; Findlay-King, Nichols, Forbes, & Macfadyen, 2016; Ludwig & Ludwig, 2014; Tait & Inch, 2016). Indeed, these principles remain alive in Theresa May’s domestic vision through the ‘shared society’, which involves ‘people looking out for others at a community level, as an alternative to large-scale standardised service provision for those in need’ (Aiken & Harris, 2017, p. 338).…”