Confusion surrounds three applications to set up Neighbourhood Planning Forums which came to the December meeting of Tower Hamlets Council’s Cabinet. Residents have done the preparatory work in three areas – parts of Spitafields, Limehouse and the Isle of Dogs – and were seeking formal recognition.
First: why did the applications come to the Cabinet? Under the mayoral system, the applications had to be decided (agreed or refused) by the mayor. The Cabinet has no power over the decision at all. Some Cabinet Members took part in the Cabinet discussion about the applications, but this “audience participation” did not make the decision-making any more transparent or democratic – it was all down to John Biggs to say yes or no. He recognised this by having little discussions with himself: “We need to take a decision. How do we do that? It’s down to me. I’ll ask myself what I think.” This would have been cute in anyone under eleven years of age.
Second: what are the Neighbourhood Planning Forums able to do? They were set up by the Con-Dem Coalition under their Localism Act – but they have very little power. They are the kind of talking shop which those with time on their hands who live in country areas may enjoy. All decisions which they take have to conform to the hierarchy of planning documents covering the area: the Tower Hamlets plan, which in turn has to conform to the London Plan, which in turn has to conform to national planning objectives. In other words, the same government which gave people the illusion of being able to take power locally has made sure that ultimate power has been retained by that same government on a very centralised basis.
On the Isle of Dogs, for example, residents would tend to oppose developments being too high: but the borough plan permits height, so locals cannot veto that. Residents would probably oppose large scale developments: but any resistance, at local or borough level, to any applications for large developments would just see the matter taken over by the London Mayor. No Neighbourhood Planning Forum would have been able to stop Boris taking over the Bishopsgate Goods Yard development, for example.
Third: why, then, was John Biggs so excited about the applications? After the Cabinet meeting, he issued a formal statement, in which he said, “Neighbourhood Planning Forums are an important way for residents to have a say over what their communities look like.” If John Biggs wants residents to be more involved in what their areas look like, he could make more effort to let residents know what planning applications are before the planning committees and to encourage residents to make representations to those committees – without the palava of setting up a Forum or believing it would be anything special.
Rachel Blake, Cabinet Member for Strategic Development, was equally delighted, saying, “It’s brilliant to see residents taking the planning process into their own hands.” It’s always nice to see Cabinet Members being optimistic, but this enthusiasm is very misplaced.
John Biggs agreed the application from the Limehouse Neighbourood Planning Forum but he delayed his decisions on the Isle of Dogs application (pending clarification of the Forum boundary) and the Spitalfields application (pending clarification of various details). Presuming the latter two applications are eventually agreed, which is what Biggs seemed to be aiming for, residents in the areas they cover who want to have a say over planning issues where they live will now have to relate to two bodies: their local Forum, which can talk about planning issues, and the planning committee where the decision is taken. Let’s hope they feel the benefit.
[Adverts]