Town hall leaders condemn ‘ill-thought-out’ plan to merge English councils

Patrick Butler www.theguardian.com 

Ministers’ plans to shake up the structure of English local government by merging councils are “ill-thought-out”, “insane” and a “bizarre diversion” that will fail to deliver savings, according to a survey of town hall leaders.

The depth of unhappiness with the plans is revealed in an annual poll of senior councillors and executives, most of whom said the changes would be costly, time-consuming and do little to address the dire financial crisis facing councils.

Most local authorities are preparing to cut local services from April while increasing council tax, fees and charges, as they battle with cost pressures that could put up to 19 town halls into effective bankruptcy over the next year, the survey found.

The Local Government Information Unit (LGIU), which carried out the survey, said the scale and speed of the proposed reorganisation had added a “new layer of uncertainty” to a sector already in a “state of crisis management”.

The government defended its plans on Wednesday night, saying it was prepared to take “tough choices” to rebuild the local government sector. It insisted it had thoroughly consulted local leaders and its ambitious timetable was intended to provide certainty for councils and increase their resilience.

A spokesperson for the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government said: “Reorganisation is a tough choice but it is the right one to end the two-tier premium and create streamlined, more accountable local government.

“We know the challenges councils are facing, which is why despite the inheritance we have been left we are making available £69bn of funding to councils across England and working with them to drive forward the government’s plan for change.”

The government’s devolution plans, published in December, include abolishing the current two-tier system and creating a smaller number of unitary authorities covering large geographical areas. Critics have called these “mega councils”.

Ministers have previously argued that effectively abolishing scores of smaller district councils would help drive economic growth, deliver significant financial efficiencies and improve accountability, despite cutting the number of elected local politicians.

The LGIU said its survey showed the vast majority of local government leaders were not onboard with the government’s plans. Many were unhappy with the costs of the changes – put at £16m per area, according to one estimate – and the amount of time and resources it was taking up.

One unnamed senior district council leader told the survey: “Reorganising local government to save money is insane. Local government has already had a 40% real-terms cut since 2010. Reorganise to deliver more local outcomes, sure, but not to save money.”

An unnamed county council treasurer said: “Local government reorganisation will be a distraction from needing to balance the books for all councils … It is making everything much more uncertain and challenging.”

A deputy mayor of a unitary council described the changes as “rushed, ill-thought-out and potentially undeliverable”, while other respondents called them a “bizarre distraction” and “the last thing we need at the worst possible time”.

Labour made no manifesto promise to reorganise councils, and many in local government are baffled about why it has embarked on such extensive and disruptive changes when most town halls are fully focused on the rising demand for social care, temporary accommodation and special educational needs spending.

There are also concerns among Labour councillors and backbench MPs that the creation of councils with target populations of 500,000 will result in areas such as Norwich, Ipswich, Brighton and Hove and Oxford that often vote centre-left being subsumed into neighbouring Conservative-voting areas.

Jonathan Carr-West, the LGIU chief executive, said: “To put it bluntly, respondents are not happy with the way that reorganisation is being carried out. The vast majority feel that the government is not providing enough clarity, enough genuine involvement for councils in the process, or realistic timeframes.”

Council tax will rise in 94% of town halls from April, the survey found, while nearly nine out of 10 councils reported they would increase fees and charges in areas such as car parking, household green waste collection, school dinners, and burials and cremations.

Nearly two-thirds (63%) of councils said they planned to reduce spending on services from April. The areas most commonly sought out for cuts were parks and leisure centres, local business support, arts and culture, adult social care, and libraries.

One unitary council leader told the survey that local authorities would find it increasingly hard to justify council tax rises as an ever-greater proportion of resources was spent on social care at the expense of more visible “public realm” services such as parks and street cleaning.

They said: “The burden of paying for services continues to shift to our residents … In short, residents are paying more for worse public services – they can’t understand why.”

The LGIU survey, which informs its annual state of local government finance report, received 186 responses from senior elected and executive leaders at 150 unique councils in England.

Not only is Labour planning to make access to local councillors more distant by abolishing districts, they now want to strip councillors of planning powers at the same time.

In 2020 Boris Johnson proposed making planning more technocratic by introducing a land zoning system where land would be divided into three categories – “growth”, “renewal” or “protected”.

For land designated for “renewal” councils would have to look favourably on new developments. In “growth” areas, new homes, hospitals and schools will be allowed automatically.

This is what Sir Keir Starmer said at the time: “This is a developers’ charter, frankly, taking councils and communities out of it.

“And on affordable housing, which is the critical issue, it says nothing. In fact it removes the initiatives that were there for affordable housing.”

The Local Government Association has written to ministers to express reservations, pointing out that it is already “larger or more controversial schemes” that are taken over by councillors.

“This democratic role of councillors in decision-making is the backbone of the English planning system and our reservations about a national scheme of delegation centre on this role potentially being eroded,” it warned.

Cranbrook is a good example of what happens with developer led planning. – Owl

Councillors to be stripped of powers to block planning schemes

Chris Smyth www.thetimes.com 

Councillors will be stripped of powers to block all but the biggest and most contentious building schemes under plans to turbocharge development.

Ministers will next week set out plans to ban councillors from interfering in the vast majority of planning applications in an effort to push through more houses, offices, factories and other large development projects.

Experts said the changes could lead to tens of thousands more homes a year and offer a “holy grail” to developers exasperated with political delays in building projects. But councils warned they risked eroding local democracy because residents would be denied the chance to use the ballot box to oppose unpopular schemes.

Angela Rayner, the deputy prime minister, will next week publish a planning and infrastructure bill designed to liberalise rules as the government promises to build 1.5 million homes this parliament and speed up infrastructure and other development projects to boost growth.

Sir Keir Starmer has made overhauling planning the foundation of his push for growth, attacking the current rules as “ruinous” and promising to take on “nimbys” who have held Britain “to ransom” and “choked” the economy.

Last year, ministers signalled that they wanted to overhaul local authority planning committees, where councillors can take decisions on local applications for development. At present councils can make their own decisions on which projects are decided by such committees, and which by professional planning officers.

Next week, Rayner will promise to go significantly further than originally thought, setting a national rule that would stop committees of councillors playing a role in all but the biggest projects and those that most clearly go against local development plans.

Exact details are still being finalised, but the threshold below which councillors cannot step in is expected to be set somewhere between ten and 100 houses. Once a project has outline permission, councillors will also not be given a say on details of housing style and layout.

Ministers are keen to use the rules to encourage small and medium developers to put forward more mid-sized schemes, and will also set a minimum size threshold for councillors to intervene in commercial development.

“We will modernise how planning committees work, making sure they are focused on key applications for larger developments rather than small scale projects or niche technical details,” a government source said. “This is about making sure the right decisions are taken at the right level.”

Matthew Spry, of the planning consultancy Lichfields, said that delegating more applications to officials “helps move us towards more consistent, policy-driven decisions: for many, the holy grail of England’s planning system. Some councils already delegate a lot to their officers, but in others, committee members expect even small schemes, and those that have been approved previously, to come before them. This means uncertainty — which is an enemy of investment — delays, some poor decisions, and wasted public money.”

While in some councils barely any applications go to planning committees, at others 20-30 per cent of decisions are made by councillors, often including almost all schemes beyond simple kitchen or loft extensions.

Spry said the change “could make a real difference” and mean more and quicker approvals, but said the definition of “major” development to be sent to councillors was crucial. “Ten houses might be a big deal in a small rural council, but is almost de minimis in large urban areas.”

Developers complain of having to repeatedly ask local councillors for permission, with their decisions far less predictable than those taken by planning officers. “Every time you have to engage with a committee of politicians is an enormous risk that could end up setting your project back years and costing you millions of pounds,” said Zack Simons KC, a leading planning barrister.

“The fundamental problem is that the way the system is set up at the moment is that if you’re bringing forward a new scheme of development of any sort you have to run it through a democratic process with input from local politicians multiple times.

“In the meantime you can have a change in administration and it’s the members who were running in opposition to the [previously approved] plan who are now judging the outline application.”

He said the proposed change would be “enormous because it would give us more certainty”, potentially leading to tens of thousands more homes. But he said “it will be incredibly important where they set the threshold”.

However, the Local Government Association has written to ministers to express reservations, pointing out that it is already “larger or more controversial schemes” that are taken over by councillors.

“This democratic role of councillors in decision-making is the backbone of the English planning system and our reservations about a national scheme of delegation centre on this role potentially being eroded,” it warned.

“Many councillors stand for election on the basis of the role they could play in positively supporting the growth or protection of the environment and community in which they stand. Potentially removing the ability for councillors to discuss, debate or vote on key developments in their localities could erode public trust in the planning system and local government itself.”

Councillors will be stripped of powers to block all but the biggest and most contentious building schemes under plans to turbocharge development.

Ministers will next week set out plans to ban councillors from interfering in the vast majority of planning applications in an effort to push through more houses, offices, factories and other large development projects.

Experts said the changes could lead to tens of thousands more homes a year and offer a “holy grail” to developers exasperated with political delays in building projects. But councils warned they risked eroding local democracy because residents would be denied the chance to use the ballot box to oppose unpopular schemes.

Angela Rayner, the deputy prime minister, will next week publish a planning and infrastructure bill designed to liberalise rules as the government promises to build 1.5 million homes this parliament and speed up infrastructure and other development projects to boost growth.

Sir Keir Starmer has made overhauling planning the foundation of his push for growth, attacking the current rules as “ruinous” and promising to take on “nimbys” who have held Britain “to ransom” and “choked” the economy.

Last year, ministers signalled that they wanted to overhaul local authority planning committees, where councillors can take decisions on local applications for development. At present councils can make their own decisions on which projects are decided by such committees, and which by professional planning officers.

Next week, Rayner will promise to go significantly further than originally thought, setting a national rule that would stop committees of councillors playing a role in all but the biggest projects and those that most clearly go against local development plans.

Exact details are still being finalised, but the threshold below which councillors cannot step in is expected to be set somewhere between ten and 100 houses. Once a project has outline permission, councillors will also not be given a say on details of housing style and layout.

Ministers are keen to use the rules to encourage small and medium developers to put forward more mid-sized schemes, and will also set a minimum size threshold for councillors to intervene in commercial development.

“We will modernise how planning committees work, making sure they are focused on key applications for larger developments rather than small scale projects or niche technical details,” a government source said. “This is about making sure the right decisions are taken at the right level.”

Matthew Spry, of the planning consultancy Lichfields, said that delegating more applications to officials “helps move us towards more consistent, policy-driven decisions: for many, the holy grail of England’s planning system. Some councils already delegate a lot to their officers, but in others, committee members expect even small schemes, and those that have been approved previously, to come before them. This means uncertainty — which is an enemy of investment — delays, some poor decisions, and wasted public money.”

While in some councils barely any applications go to planning committees, at others 20-30 per cent of decisions are made by councillors, often including almost all schemes beyond simple kitchen or loft extensions.

Spry said the change “could make a real difference” and mean more and quicker approvals, but said the definition of “major” development to be sent to councillors was crucial. “Ten houses might be a big deal in a small rural council, but is almost de minimis in large urban areas.”

Developers complain of having to repeatedly ask local councillors for permission, with their decisions far less predictable than those taken by planning officers. “Every time you have to engage with a committee of politicians is an enormous risk that could end up setting your project back years and costing you millions of pounds,” said Zack Simons KC, a leading planning barrister.

“The fundamental problem is that the way the system is set up at the moment is that if you’re bringing forward a new scheme of development of any sort you have to run it through a democratic process with input from local politicians multiple times.

“In the meantime you can have a change in administration and it’s the members who were running in opposition to the [previously approved] plan who are now judging the outline application.”

He said the proposed change would be “enormous because it would give us more certainty”, potentially leading to tens of thousands more homes. But he said “it will be incredibly important where they set the threshold”.

However, the Local Government Association has written to ministers to express reservations, pointing out that it is already “larger or more controversial schemes” that are taken over by councillors.

“This democratic role of councillors in decision-making is the backbone of the English planning system and our reservations about a national scheme of delegation centre on this role potentially being eroded,” it warned.

“Many councillors stand for election on the basis of the role they could play in positively supporting the growth or protection of the environment and community in which they stand. Potentially removing the ability for councillors to discuss, debate or vote on key developments in their localities could erode public trust in the planning system and local government itself.”