News

Localism Act gives residents a voice to shape future

By Jon Nurse
September 06, 2012

Back in 2010, communities secretary Eric Pickles heralded a ‘ground-breaking shift in power’ as the Localism Act was unveiled.

The landmark bill is designed to give more power to the people –providing them with greater control to have a say on their area’s future.

Reporter JON NURSE investigated what difference theact, which came into force in April,is making for people in Wokingham.

An open meeting discussing the Localism Act was hailed as a shot in the arm for those keen to have a greater role in shaping their community and the services provided.

Wokingham Society chairman Peter Must welcomed the advice on the act from speakers Ian Harvey, the coordinator of charity Civic Voice, and councillor Chris Singleton, Wokingham town and borough councillor for Westcott Ward, at the society’s meeting in July.

Mr Harvey said he believed the act is radical, powerful, flexible and pro-development, giving the community the right to challenge.

He suggested residents could define their neighbourhoods and set up local forums with a specific name, written constitution and membership of at least 21.

Forum proposals could go to a community referendum which would lead to binding legislation.

He also highlighted that communities are now able to have a major input in planning decisions.

Cllr Singleton invited the society to understand the community’s needs and identify what it considers to be community assets, working in partnership with the town and borough councils to develop them.

“The Localism Act is a positive move,” he said. “Sadly we have lost assets from the community. The act offers us a chance to identify assets we would like to keep and gives us a breathing space of six months to look for partners and try to do something with them.”

He highlighted Tudor House Surgery and White House School as locations in the town that could be viewed as assets.

Mr Must said: “It’s the effect of the act that is interesting us the most.

“You just wish this [the act] could have been there 10 to 15 years ago as assets have been lost in that time.”

In November last year The Old School House in Reading Road, one of the last remaining Victorian buildings in Wokingham, was sold at auction to a private bidder.

Mr Must explained: “The town council did try to acquire it but was outbid. We can’t be sure that wouldn’t have happened in any process, but at least bidders can have six months more time now than they did before.”

Welcoming the act’s power to give communities a greater voice in planning decisions, Mr Must added: “We’re not complaining that people are not listening to us now, but we would like to have a greater extent of dialogue on these matters.

“The society will continue to do our best to announce what the community would like when they are not present to express their opinions.”

Cllr Singleton added that the society and councils could also examine ways of improving the delivery of services and enhancing the cultural, recreational and sporting life of the community.

“The question of libraries has come up in the past, so we can ask what can we do locally to improve libraries?” he said. “Or parking, for instance – what can we do to improve that?”

| Submit Comments | View Comments (9)

« Previous Story | Next Story »

Most recent user comments 9 of 9

Phil Challis, as usual I can't disagree with you. As with any change, you have to wonder who will benefit; if there were no planning laws, 'people' would not benefit because of the uncontrolled buildings, extensions, balconies, garages etc. thrown up on every other property, which would likely be very unsightly and block light from neighbours' homes. Who would win? Well, if properties were allowed to grow larger, there would be an opportunity to create more bedrooms/flats, which would benefit landowners and reduce the need for the government to be extra housing (by squeezing people into these extensions, or 'Slough sheds').

Seems to me that it is designed to help landowners get richer and reduce the urgency of government building more housing by cramming people into sub-standard housing.

Damiano_Tommassi, Wokingham
07/09/2012 at 14:38

Localism or central dictates on planning - the government needs to decide --->

The government plans to relax current planning rules so that people can extend properties by up to 8m without any constraints. They say they want to get planning officers "off people's backs". However in reality, one family’s dream 8m (25ft) extension can be their neighbour’s shady nightmare.

I have spent much of my time as a councillor at Wokingham Borough and Woodley Town Councils working with residents on planning issues and I have seen what some people think it is acceptable to impose on their neighbour – quite unbelievable! I have also seen perfectly good extensions turned down despite support from neighbours due to petty rules. There has to be a balance.

Surely the key test is whether a large extension is acceptable to neighbours and neighbourhoods. To allow residents to build such huge extensions without any review or right for neighbours to challenge is utter madness. There must be protection from unneighbourly extensions.

As well as giving the right to extend without undue interventions from planning officers, the planning system must protect people and neighbourhoods. I had naively thought that this is what localism and neighbourhood input into local plans were all about, but now we have a central dictate, that is in reality a charter for unneighbourly development and a throw back to the days of Dickens

Will there be any control on what these extensions will be used for? Recently we have begun to see some action on “Slough Sheds” where people have been living in glorified garden sheds. However this action will be undermined if the government allow these unscrupulous landlords to build 25ft extensions on to their house instead.

Phil Challis, woodley
07/09/2012 at 14:13

Oops.

mavdo, Wokingham
07/09/2012 at 10:01

Hehe, my name being used in vain?

I don't trust this legislation as far as I can throw it. They say that local people will have powers over planning law - that's nonsense as it will still be overthrown by the planning inspectors. If it is anything like the government petition, where 100,000 people on the number 10 website can spark a debate in the HoC, then nothing comes of that if the government decides it won't. So it means nothing.

The localism bill is a way of pushing central government funded tax rebates, like council tax reductions for disability, unemployment and single person allowance, down to local government, and reducing the amount of money available at the same time. It has nothing to do with local power to local people. If it did, I'd be all for it because then we'd have some real power over the houses being built. We don't and we never will.

mavdo, Wokingham
07/09/2012 at 10:00

Morning Stig2.

Interesting idea! It's a little ambiguous... "set up local forums with a specific name, written constitution and membership of at least 21. Forum proposals could go to a community referendum which would lead to binding legislation"

Our membership to this website probably qualifies !

RE Tudor House - I think that's already privately owned (by the doctors that work there, according to an earlier article).

Damiano_Tommassi, Wokingham
07/09/2012 at 09:27

I am all for this Act if it means that prestigious, historical local assets are not easily sold off as was The Old School House to build houses. In particular, Tudor House Surgey which is in a strategic position in Wkm. which should be refurbished as part of a regeneration. When the article talks about neighbourhood groups of 21. What does this mean? Does it mean that the 21 have to all live near each other or can it be anyone from Wokingham like say the get wokingham (GW) contributors. Mavdo, Alex f, PR, DT etc.. will comment on this!!! I was wondering if we could get 21 GW people together to formally protest against selling of our biggest asset Elms Field. Is it worth a shot?

Stig2, Wokingham
07/09/2012 at 09:15

or the thousands of new houses being forced on us?

Andy Shaw
06/09/2012 at 14:46

Will this make any difference to the rape of Elms Field?

Bin bags?

Tory councillors voting themselves additional cash for running services that they have semi-privatised?

Thought not.