MPs call for councils to take key role in localism

The arrangement, proposed by the communities and local government select committee, would see local authorities engaging with charities, individuals and other community groups to work on local plans.

The chairman of the CLG committee, MP Clive Betts, said for localism to be a success, the government “has to be clear about what type of localism it wants to pursue”.

He added: “It isn’t yet clear whether local government is at the heart of localism or if it’s a more grassroots thing. We believe local councils have to be at the heart of it and it should be up to each area how communities will be involved and consulted.”

The report calls for more clarity on the definition of localism, rather than allowing individual departments to interpret it to their advantage, and recommends that councils be given more financial responsibility. The role of the minister for decentralisation, it added, would be “crucial” in prioritising what can be achieved.

The committee also criticised the government for implementing policies that circumvent rather than empower local government.

“The litmus test for delivering a more localist political culture will be how ministers react to devolved decisions they dislike,” added Betts. “If the government persists with a policy of ’guided localism’ it will undermine the whole decentralisation project.”

RIBA head of policy and public affairs Anna Scott-Marshall said the institute firmly backed the committee’s findings.

“Localism can’t work without the role of local authorities being clear and the important democratic framework they bring to local decision-making,” she said. “What is only just becoming clearer is the amount to which local authorities steer what happens.”

But London Planning & Development Forum chairman Brian Waters said that more work for councils coupled with less control over local decisions could present problems with councillors potentially resenting localism in the future.

This week also saw the second reading of the localism bill in the House of Lords, where a number of controversial clauses were debated, including the proposed “cash-for-planning” amendment . The Royal Town Planning Institute has lobbied against the change, saying it “contravenes the fundamental principles” of the planning system.

RTPI president Richard Summers said: “The proposed change will only increase public suspicion and cynicism about the planning process”.