The recent venture into the High Court by Tewkesbury Borough Council has left it facing not only two significant urban extensions it didn’t want, but also a no doubt sizable costs claim from the Secretary of State. However, the ramifications go well beyond its boundaries, as it may also signal the end of Localism – in concept, if not in terminology.

The local planning authority relied on a “fundamental requirement for the Council, post the Localism Act 2011, to be in the driving seat of spatial planning for its area, including housing land provision” which it contended the Secretary of State had ignored.

The case considered whether the Localism Act 2011 has brought about a fundamental change in the landscape of planning decisions with regard to the approach to be followed in the determination of planning applications. The Council submitted it had, meaning much greater weight must now be given to the views of the local planning authority. However, despite accepting that the Act had made significant changes to the planning system, The Hon. Mr Justice Males did not accept that:

1. The effect of those changes was to eliminate the role of the Secretary of State in determining planning applications opposed by local planning authorities; or:

2. The Act abolished the long-standing principles and policies such as the need for a five year housing land supply or the principle of prematurity between individual applications and the formulation and adoption of local development plans.

As to whether the fanfare which accompanied the Act had been justified in terms of the actual transfer of power to local authorities, The Hon. Mr Justice Males did not say, but he stated that:

“…if it were, I do not suppose that it would be the first time that more has been claimed for a legislative reform than has actually been delivered.” [61]

Cllr Rob Vines, Leader of Tewkesbury Council, appeared to agree in his response to the decision:

“What is clear is that the Localism Act has not delivered what was expected and suggested by the government when it was introduced, which was to remove top-down planning and to transfer power to communities.”

The Coalition Government’s ‘Big Society’ concept disappeared some time ago, but this case potentially does damage the future prospects of the concept of Localism, if not the terminology, from being relied upon by local objectors to planning applications. Regardless of legislation and rhetoric, the requirements of the planning system and the need to plan responsibly and effectively for future growth requirements will not go away. Indeed, the Coalition Government’s drive for economic growth may yet kill its own flagship planning reform.

Consultation with local communities will remain essential to successful planning projects, but in return local planning authorities will need to take their responsibilities under Localism more seriously – this judgement could mean that simply saying NO to developments without evidence or alternative plans cannot continue.

There is clearly now a gap between the rhetoric of Localism and the reality of constrained local planning policies. Expect communities to react in a passionate fashion where such a conflict exists. Tewkesbury is simply a taste of what is to come as local authorities and the communities that they serve reach for the powers they have been promised but, in reality, simply aren't there. This suggests a possible environment of heightened local protest for significant and controversial developments. The Government has potentially created a rod for developers' backs - however inadvertently.