The flagship Localism Bill is having to steer a course between the rocks of unbridled development on the one hand, and the whirlpool of NIMBY-ism on the other, leading to delays in its implementation, writes Nick Raynsford

What is happening to the Localism Bill? This may seem a strange question as, on the surface, the Bill is progressing as planned through its parliamentary stages, and is still frequently referred to as one of the Government’s ‘flagships’.

But look below the surface and it soon emerges that not all is well with this flagship. Not only does it face the prospect of some potentially-very choppy waters to negotiate, particularly in the House of Lords, but the robustness of various elements in the ship’s structure is now looking suspect.

The first sign of strain is the unusually-long delay between the Bill’s committee stage in the House of Commons, and the report and third reading.

Normally, a Bill moves to report stage within two to three weeks of the end of its Committee stage. This is clearly not going to happen with the Localism Bill.

The committee stage concluded on 12 March and, as yet, we have been given no date for report. Because of the Easter recess, there is now no prospect of the Localism Bill getting its third reading before the end of April and, if rumours are to be believed, it may not reappear in the Commons until mid-May, two months after the completion of committee stage.

Given the requirements of the House of Lords timetable, there is therefore no prospect of the Bill getting Royal Assent in July, which was the Government’s original intention. And with the Lords likely to scrutinise closely many provisions in the Bill, not least the extensive use of ‘Henry VIII’ powers, it seems likely that the legislation will not complete its parliamentary passage until late autumn.

This timetable slippage has significant implications. Since the Government’s maladroit attempt to abolish regional spatial strategies was struck down in the High Court, ministers are dependent on the Localism Bill coming into effect to achieve this goal. So planning applications will continue to be subject to current arrangements and appeals determined under existing rules by the Planning Inspectorate, at least until very late in 2011. House-builders, among others, will have noted the implications of this slippage.

So why has the Government slowed down progress of the Bill? In the course of the committee stage, Greg Clark, the minister in charge of the Bill, agreed to consider various amendments, and is clearly giving thought to these. But the Civil Service is traditionally used to having to prepare options and amendments quickly. This shouldn’t account for a two-month delay between committee and report.

Probably more significant is the increasingly-obvious conflict between the advocates of ‘growth’ and the advocates of ‘localism’ within the Government.

We got a glimpse of this in the Budget statement. Having made a perfunctory gesture in the localism direction – ‘Yes, local communities should have a greater say in planning...’ – chancellor, George Osborne, nailed his colours to the growth mast, with four very powerful ‘buts’. They are:

‘We will expect all bodies involved in planning to prioritise growth and jobs’

‘We will introduce a new presumption in favour of sustainable development so that the default answer to development is “yes”’

‘We will remove the nationally-imposed targets on the use of previously developed land’ – that is to say, opening the door for more greenfield development’

‘and we will allow certain use class changes… and pilot… auctions of planning permission on land.’

It is far from clear how this strongly pro-development approach can be made to fit with the complex arrangements in the Localism Bill for the creation of neighbourhood plans and the designation of assets of community value, neither of which are likely to be adopted by local communities for the purpose of facilitating commercial development.

Whether we are talking about proposals for more housing schemes on greenfield sites, or an unwelcome change of use of premises, or an unpopular development scheme which, nevertheless, involves new job creation, the chancellor’s message will be starkly at odds with the instincts of many local residents’ groups.

How is this going to play out? If local authorities respond to localist pressures, the default position on development proposals will not be ‘yes’. If they heed the chancellor’s message, a lot of community groups which have been led to believe that they will get more say over local development decisions will feel cheated.

Up until now, the Government has tried to cover up the potential conflicts by giving, rather Pollyana-ish reassurances that local neighbourhood groups will use the new powers in the Localism Bill to support development – at least the kinds of development they want.

These claims were always suspect. We know from decades of experience that most local neighbourhood planning campaigns are prompted by opposition to unwelcome developments.

So Mr Clark’s hopes to steer an easy course between the rocks of development on one side, and the whirlpool of NIMBY-ism on the other, look doomed, now that the chancellor has made it clear that the ship has to steer towards the rocks. n

Nick Raynsford is a former local government minister