106 questions and the future of neighbourhood planning ain’t one

There are important questions to be asked about the role of neighbourhood planning, writes Simon Ricketts.

I found it surprising and maybe disappointing that the very long list of questions raised by the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government (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?

*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.

Simon Ricketts is a partner at Town Legal. This article first appeared on his Simonicity planning law blog.