Introduction
The concept of localism, introduced in England through the Localism Act 2011, represented a significant shift in the approach to land use planning by prioritising community involvement and decentralising decision-making powers. This essay examines whether the localism project effectively terminates strategic planning as a central component of England’s statutory planning system. Strategic planning, traditionally a cornerstone of spatial governance, ensures coordinated development across regions to address issues like housing, infrastructure, and economic growth. However, the push towards localism, with its emphasis on neighbourhood plans and reduced central oversight, raises questions about the erosion of strategic coherence. This essay argues that while localism empowers communities and introduces flexibility, it undermines the ability to maintain a unified strategic vision, thereby weakening the framework of statutory planning. The discussion is structured into three key sections: the principles and objectives of localism, the decline of strategic planning mechanisms, and the implications for balanced development. Through critical analysis and evidence from academic and governmental sources, this essay explores the tension between local autonomy and overarching spatial strategy.
The Principles and Objectives of Localism
The Localism Act 2011 emerged under the Coalition Government as a response to perceived over-centralisation in planning policy, aiming to devolve power to local authorities and communities (DCLG, 2011). At its core, localism sought to enhance democratic engagement by allowing neighbourhoods to create their own plans, often bypassing higher-tier strategic frameworks. For example, the introduction of Neighbourhood Plans enabled communities to influence local development directly, a significant departure from top-down regional strategies. This approach was framed as a means to address local needs more effectively, prioritising the voices of residents over distant policymakers.
However, while the intention behind localism—greater public participation—is commendable, it arguably neglects the broader interdependencies that strategic planning addresses. As Gallent and Robinson (2012) note, localism assumes that communities possess the resources and expertise to plan effectively, an assumption often disproven by disparities in capacity across different areas. Indeed, wealthier communities may produce robust plans, while deprived areas struggle without adequate support, thus exacerbating spatial inequalities. Therefore, although localism promotes tailored solutions, it risks fragmenting the planning system by sidelining the need for a cohesive, strategic approach that transcends local boundaries.
The Decline of Strategic Planning Mechanisms
One of the most profound impacts of localism is the diminishing role of strategic planning within England’s statutory framework. Prior to the Localism Act, regional spatial strategies (RSS) provided a structured mechanism for coordinating development across multiple local authorities, addressing issues such as housing targets and infrastructure provision (Haughton et al., 2013). However, the revocation of RSS in 2010, coupled with the emphasis on local plans, signalled a retreat from strategic oversight. The National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF), introduced in 2012, further reinforced this shift by prioritising local decision-making while offering only broad national guidelines (DCLG, 2012).
Critically, the absence of a formal strategic layer has led to what some scholars describe as a ‘policy vacuum’ at the regional scale (Pemberton and Morphet, 2014). For instance, without RSS, there is limited coordination for cross-boundary issues such as transport networks or green belt protection, often resulting in piecemeal development. Moreover, the ‘duty to cooperate’—intended as a replacement for RSS to encourage collaboration between local authorities—lacks enforceability and has been widely critiqued as ineffective (Haughton et al., 2013). Typically, councils prioritise local interests over regional needs, undermining strategic coherence. Thus, localism, while empowering at the micro level, appears to dismantle the mechanisms necessary for strategic planning.
Implications for Balanced Development
The shift towards localism carries significant implications for achieving balanced and sustainable development across England. Strategic planning historically ensured that national priorities, such as housing shortages or economic disparities, were addressed through coordinated policies. However, under localism, the fragmentation of planning authority risks creating uneven outcomes. For example, in areas where local opposition to new housing is strong, development may be stymied, exacerbating national housing crises despite overarching demand (Gallent and Robinson, 2012). This tension highlights a core limitation of localism: while it fosters community agency, it often neglects wider societal needs.
Furthermore, the reduced emphasis on strategic planning jeopardises long-term sustainability goals. Issues like climate change mitigation and biodiversity protection require integrated, cross-regional approaches, which local plans alone cannot adequately deliver (Pemberton and Morphet, 2014). Indeed, without a strategic framework, local decisions may inadvertently undermine national environmental targets, as seen in inconsistent approaches to renewable energy projects across different councils. Generally, this lack of alignment suggests that localism, in prioritising short-term local gains, compromises the ability to plan strategically for future challenges. The challenge, therefore, lies in balancing local autonomy with the need for a unifying vision—a balance that the current system struggles to achieve.
Conclusion
In conclusion, the localism project, while rooted in the laudable aim of enhancing community involvement, effectively diminishes the role of strategic planning within England’s statutory land use planning system. As discussed, the principles of localism, though empowering at a local level, fragment decision-making and overlook regional interdependencies. The decline of mechanisms like regional spatial strategies, compounded by the limitations of the ‘duty to cooperate’, has weakened the capacity for coordinated, strategic development. Moreover, the implications for balanced growth and sustainability underscore the risks of prioritising local autonomy over national and regional priorities. Arguably, the erosion of strategic planning under localism poses a significant challenge to addressing complex, cross-boundary issues such as housing crises and climate change. Future policy might consider reintegrating elements of strategic oversight to complement local initiatives, ensuring that England’s planning system retains both community engagement and a coherent, long-term vision. This essay highlights the need for critical reflection on localism’s impacts, urging a reconsideration of how strategic planning can be preserved amidst decentralisation.
References
- DCLG (Department for Communities and Local Government). (2011) Localism Act 2011: Overview. UK Government.
- DCLG (Department for Communities and Local Government). (2012) National Planning Policy Framework. UK Government.
- Gallent, N. and Robinson, S. (2012) Neighbourhood Planning: Communities, Networks and Governance. Policy Press.
- Haughton, G., Allmendinger, P. and Oosterlynck, S. (2013) Spaces of Neoliberal Experimentation: Soft Spaces, Postpolitics, and Neoliberal Governmentality. Environment and Planning A, 45(1), pp. 217-234.
- Pemberton, S. and Morphet, J. (2014) The Rescaling of Economic Governance: Insights into the Transitional Territories of England. Urban Studies, 51(11), pp. 2354-2370.
