UK: Nimbyism, Yimbyism And Localism – Is There A Difference?

Why a populist approach to planning is a mistake

When asked to define populism in an episode of The Rest is Politics¹ earlier this year, Rory Stewart suggested:

It is a fact that planning decisions made by local authorities, the Planning Inspectorate ("PINS") or the Secretary of State will not always reflect the vocal opinions of some local groups, even where they claim to speak for the whole community. This was always a strength not a weakness of the planning system. However, this principle is being eroded by populist rhetoric from government which is threatening the legitimacy of our whole system of development control.

"NIMBYISM"², in common parlance, used to be a way of dismissing the objections of local people to schemes they didn't like. It was understood that people near a proposed development site might be opposed due to fears (founded or unfounded) about temporary or permanent impacts. The purpose of the planning system was to take such concerns into account but to weigh up the impacts overall for the community and the nation when making local plans and taking decisions on planning applications.

In the past decade, however, much of what might have in the past been condemned or dismissed as NIMBYISM is now celebrated and encouraged by government as "localism".

This article looks at how this has happened, the inconsistent application of localism across the planning system, and why in my view we should be rowing back rather than further embracing a populist approach to planning.

With apologies to those well versed in how the planning system works, I start with a short summary of who makes planning decisions, and the legal bounds within which they can make them, taking account of vocal local opposition.

Local authority decisions and PINS inspector decisions will not always reflect vocal local opinions

The majority of planning applications in this country must be made to local authorities, under the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 regime. The views of particular groups of local residents (usually most vocal in opposition to development) may or may not prevail in a local authority's decision. Even if they do, that decision may be over-turned by PINS on appeal. This is a fundamental part of how the planning system works.

Broadly, all decisions on planning applications made by local authorities must be determined in accordance with the local development plan (a suite of documents setting out local planning policy – which must broadly align with national policy – and the specific zones where certain types of development would generally be supported) unless "material considerations"³ indicate otherwise. These "material considerations" would include the representations of local people insofar as they relate to matters relevant to planning. The courts have set out over the years the matters which can and cannot be considered to be material planning considerations. The impact on house prices, for example, cannot be taken into account as a material consideration.⁴

However, even if a matter is material, the "weight" to be accorded to it is a matter for the local authority's discretion. While the local authority's planning officer will write a report and recommendation, the application is decided by a planning committee of 10 or so locally elected councillors who vote on whether to grant or refuse it. Inevitably, local politics therefore comes into play in such decisions. This is considered an important part of local democracy, but local democracy is not sacrosanct, because if an application is refused the developer has a right to appeal to PINS (who hear and decide appeals on behalf of the Secretary of State)⁵. Sometimes councillors may refuse particular developments even if their planning officer recommends approval on objective planning grounds, and even if they are advised that the refusal is likely to be overturned on appeal.

On appeal, a PINS inspector will reconsider the case (often via a hearing or inquiry) and make his or her own decision. It is perfectly lawful for the inspector, unfettered by local politics, to take a different view of the weight to be given to the various factors and therefore come to a different decision from the local authority. This may sometimes involve giving greater weight to relevant national policies over local impacts, or just weighing the various local impacts differently.

The system therefore tries to balance the rights of affected local people to have their views taken into account with:

• the wider national and local need for development recognised by policy;
• the fact that the silent majority may not engage with the process at all; and
• implicitly, a recognition that developers would not invest in some much-needed projects at all without knowing they had a right of appeal to an independent body.

Secretary of State decisions will not always reflect vocal local opinions

Consent for development can also be determined in certain cases by the Secretary of State him or herself, rather than being determined by local authorities or by PINS inspectors. Where the Secretary of State considers particular applications made to the local authority to be of "more than local importance", he or she can choose to make the decision, usually after asking PINS to hold an inquiry⁶. Equally, where an appeal to PINS against local refusal of an application is triggered by a developer, the Secretary of State can ask that after the appeal is heard the inspector sends his or her report to the Secretary of State for a decision (rather than leaving the decision to the PINS inspector)⁷. In both cases, the legal framework for the making of the Secretary of State's decision will be the same as for a decision made by the local authority or the PINS inspector – based upon the local development plan and material considerations.

There is also an entirely separate planning regime under the Planning Act 2008 for certain classes of infrastructure project (power stations, roads, airports, overhead electric lines etc) for which applications must be made not to the local authority but directly to the Secretary of State. For such "nationally significant infrastructure projects"⁸, PINS will hold a six-month examination in which local people and local authorities may participate, before making a recommendation to the Secretary of State on whether to grant or refuse consent.

The coalition government of 2010 perceives a problem requiring more "localism"

Broadly, the above approach to planning decision-making existed when David Cameron's coalition government came into power in 2010 and it exists in substantially the same form today. But from the Cameron government onwards it seems that politicians have felt increasingly dissatisfied with its relationship to local communities, and have been looking for ways to bring more "localism" into the system. Reforms to the planning system to introduce more "localism" were only a small part of implementing a wider devolution of powers which is part of Conservative ideology. The question is how well that works in practice for planning.

The first step was the Localism Act 2011. The "plain English guide" to the Act⁹ under the heading "Reform to make the planning system clearer, more democratic and more effective" explains the impetus behind the reforms as follows:

This is an interesting statement and one worth considering if we want to understand what the perceived problem was that subsequent moves towards localism have sought to fix. They appear to be threefold:

• members of the public not having enough influence over decisions affecting them;
• planning powers being exercised by people not directly affected by their decisions; and
• both of the above leading to resentment and an adversarial system.

I will look at each of these in turn, and consider how effective changes brought in by the Localism Act 2011 and since have been at fixing them.

This article is not a politically driven critique of the particular governments and politicians who have sought to make the changes discussed. While localism may have begun as part of the Conservative ideology, the way in which populism has swept through so many aspects of society means, I suspect, that governments of other political parties may feel impelled towards some form of increased populism which will be badged as "localism". In particular, it is unclear whether Keir Starmer's commitment to enable communities to "Take Back Control"¹⁰ would include a localist approach to planning. Certainly, a number of statements in Labour's report "A New Britain: Renewing our Democracy and Rebuilding our Economy" could be read as supporting this approach if they were applied to planning¹¹.

For the reasons set out, I believe this would be a misstep. The problems identified are largely illusory or an inevitable consequence of any planning system, and the changes put forward to date have generally not had the intended effect.

The desperate need to boost the UK's growth and prosperity, and to build the infrastructure needed to provide energy security, reach Net Zero and house our population, make it all the more important that politicians do not waste time tinkering with the system trying to achieve more localism. Political and legislative effort is much better placed in looking at more effective ways to facilitate the planning system.

To view the full article click here

Footnotes

1. Rest is Politics, podcast by Alasdair Campbell and Rory Stewart, 5 January 2023.

2. "NIMBY" is an acronym for "not in my back yard".

3. Town and Country Planning Act 1990, section 70(2).

4. The reason being that the planning system is intended to promote the public good as a whole, recognising that sometimes this will mean detriment to individuals.

5. Town and Country Planning Act 1990, section 78.

6. Town and Country Planning Act 1990, section 77.

7. Commonly known as a "recovered" appeal.

8. Defined in Planning Act 2008, section 14.

9. "A plain English guide to the Localism Act", Department for Communities and Local Government, November 2011.

10. Keir Starmer's New Year speech of 5 January 2023.

11. See for example pages 69-70: "There is clearly an appetite for more local power and voice. Our underlying principle is that devolution in England should be built from the bottom up, responding to local demand and built from the bottom up, responding to local demand and built from local communities and councils, rather than imposed from the centre. This may mean it will take a variety of forms, not simply combined authorities and mayors, and that its development might be slower, but it will mean that it is more firmly grounded in local assent. The idea of taking decisions as locally as meaningfully possible – otherwise known as the principle of subsidiarity – should be more than a rhetorical flourish. It should be a constitutional principle to guide the devolution of power in practice. Indeed we support the idea of 'double devolution' – pushing power as close as possible to people and communities."

The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.