Devolution & Democracy

The first significant piece of planning legislation, the 1947 Town and Country Planning Act, established the principle of local democracy in planning, initially through elected representatives and later in the requirement for public consultation on planning applications and strategic planning documents.

Recent Government policy, February’s Levelling Up White Paper, is expected to lead to a series of planning reforms and it is interesting to consider how the commitment to democracy is upheld in policy today. 

Carter Jonas planning partners, Gareth Jackson in Bristol and Nicky Brock in Oxford, consider the proposed ‘devolution deals’ and their impact on the democratic process.

Currently devolution exists, to varying degrees, within 40% of the population of England: London, Cambridgeshire and Peterborough, Liverpool, Manchester, North of Tyne, West Yorkshire, South Yorkshire, Tees Valley, the West of England and the West Midlands have a combined authority led by an elected mayor. Only in London does a mayor have responsibility for planning, but the offer of ‘London-style devolution’ could result in many of these areas, and others, gaining a new planning authority at a regional or county-wide level. 

The proposals within the Levelling Up White Paper extend the opportunity for ‘London-style devolution’ beyond city areas to ‘every area of England that wants one’. So would an additional tier of planning administration detract from, or extend, local involvement in planning?
 

Bristol & Devolution

Gareth has recently located to Bristol from London. Bristol currently has a devolved assembly, the West of England Combined Authority, which is led by a Metro Mayor and covers three geographical areas: Bath & North East Somerset, Bristol and South Gloucestershire. The Combined Authority also supports the Local Enterprise Partnership, which covers the three councils and also North Somerset Council.
Gareth sees the benefits of ‘London-style devolution’ to local accountability: “The London Mayor’s planning powers essentially have two elements: the formation of the London Plan - a development plan which must be reflected in every London borough’s Local Plan, and the right to be consulted on all planning applications which, as determined by specific criteria, are deemed to be of ‘potential strategic importance’ to London.”

In terms of democratic accountability, it could be argued that if a local authority has turned down a planning application, it is undemocratic for the decision to be overturned by a more remote authority. 

Gareth’s experience suggests otherwise: “If a mayor has been democratically elected, their views are representative of the electorate. Regarding ‘referred’ applications, local planning authority officers are typically present at meetings in which these schemes are discussed. And furthermore, the mayor’s decision will be based on the combined authority’s strategic plan – a document which constituents are consulted upon at length.”

Oxfordshire & Devolution

Oxfordshire, which is comprised of two-tier authorities, does not have a combined authority, although the Oxfordshire Growth Board and previously the Science Vale, Knowledge Spine, Oxford City Deal and the Oxfordshire Housing and Growth Deal have enabled the development of economic and development strategies across the county for over a decade. In terms of its demographic, geographical layout, housing need and Green Belt pressures, Oxford has much in common with Cambridgeshire, which has had a combined authority in place since 2017. 

Nicky anticipates that a similar administration could benefit her clients’ development proposals: “All too often local residents withhold support on the basis of technical issues (such as drainage, ecology or road layouts) without accessing the information necessary to take an informed decision, or they refuse to support planning applications because of concerns which are not material planning considerations. With development principles put in place through a regional strategic plan, residents’ views could be included at an earlier stage and the number of planning applications refused could be reduced. Additionally, planning committees, rather simply than finding reasons to reject a planning application would have to be more thorough in their assessments.

“I can see the approach that exists in London as taking some of the politics out of planning – preventing councillors from being overly influenced by local opinion and prioritising regional needs on a more strategic level.”

“This is exactly what we found in London”, says Gareth. “Also I’d go as far as to say that the call-in powers and the presence of a strategic plan resulted in local government – both councillors and officers - raising its game and often taking a more professional approach. With regional support, officers can be emboldened to make recommendations which they might have avoided otherwise, because there is a further layer of support at a strategic level.”

From a planning and development perspective, Nicky and Gareth agreed that devolution would be beneficial in Oxfordshire and the West of England – from the ability to share housing allocations more effectively, to strategic transport planning which could significantly benefit local authorities’ ability to address net zero. From a local democracy point of view, it was felt that devolution introduces additional opportunities for engagement. This new accountability may be at a regional, rather than local level, but decisions taken at this level are the result of local views which have emerged though extensive consultation on the strategic plan and are therefore representative of all of those living in the area.