Is meaningless consultation set to become this government’s answer to meaningless assessment and inspection?
The coalition is seeking to engage with its citizens in a series of initiatives ranging the Spending Challenge, a Treasury website aimed at generating ideas for cuts, to David Cameron’s flagship Big Society.
But the first one off the mark was the online consultation on the coalition’s Programme for Government. The Communities and Local Government department has just issued its response to the 352 people who took part in the online exercise.
The public contributions ranged from sensible to questionable to downright bonkers and there was what looked like an organised attempt by Christian groups to hijack the agenda.
On housing, there was support for coalition policies such as abolishing regional spatial strategies, with one respondent arguing that giving local communities the power to decide housing policy would be a big boost in rural areas where there are no suitable homes for families.
But there was lots of opposition too. ‘Abolishing RSS is madness – that is a case of throwing out the baby with the bathwater – local councils need guidance on a range of planning subjects that cut across council boundaries,’ said one opponent.
Many people also questioned the direction of policy on investment (‘why is affofdable social Housing not a major priority and area for investment?’) and private renting (‘it is time that tenants within the private rental sector had some protections in place against negligent, greedy and temporary landlords).
But any of them hoping that the exercise might actually mean anything will be left disappointed by a response that could have been written before it started.
Policies that have already been implemented, such as the abolition of regional strategies, are not mentioned. Those still to be decided, such as funding for affordable housing in the spending review, get a classic civil service non-answer.
‘Government is committed to increasing the supply of affordable housing,’ says the two-paragraph response on housing. Blandly ignoring any decisions that might be about to be made on investment, it simply repeats the coalition’s intention to create more local housing trusts, give incentives for new development and continue to support shared owners and social tenants to buy.
The response is over in two paragraphs which are then followed by the promise ‘we’ll keep listening’ and an invitation to take part in two more consultations, the Spending Challenge and Your Freedom, an exercise in scrapping laws and regulations. All in all it’s not an auspicious start for the new form of public consultation - and looks more like a total waste of time and money.
In the meantime the Big Society has been launched as a flagship idea that in theory could transform the lives of many tenants on estates. But just how big is it really going to be when the organisation that could help empower tenants to take part has already had its funding cut? Is there only room for people who already have power and influence and who want to do what the government wants?
The coalition government has heavily criticised its predecessor for the way that assessment and inspection degenerated into mere box-ticking exercises. Are consultation and engagement already going the same way?
Have your say
You must sign in to make a comment
Readers' comments (5)
Bannside | 03/08/2010 8:18 am
"create more local housing trusts", what is a local housing trust? Who creates them? Who is on them? What do they do?
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
Steven McCann | 03/08/2010 10:30 am
Carson - we don't know yet. The only model we have to go on are local housing trusts, which were given life by the 2008 Housing & Regeneration Act. They are bodies formed by people in a local area, principally in some rural areas to purchase land and then to enable the building of housing, often by a housing association, for local people. There is one in Cornwall but I forget precisely where.
This government proposes that LHTs can by pass local planning requirements if there is something like 90% local support for housing to be built.
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
Anonymous | 03/08/2010 11:03 am
So, a body of people in a local area purchase land for housing, have a referendum along with council elections every four years that can give or reject outline planning permission that is subject to planning pemission, and this is simplifying the process!
90% of those that vote? And what about the all of disenfrancihsed voters in society, how are they to be involved? New Labour disenfranchises and marginalises them and the tories (the Libs are just there to do the tories dirty work and are finished) rejoice and their self servers, (the body of peole in the local area?) have a field day.
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
Jules Birch | 03/08/2010 11:44 am
Grant Shapps told a conference at the end of June: 'We want local people to decide what happens in their community. Local Housing Trusts should be able to proceed in areas where there is overwhelming support for new developments from people living in the area.'
'But essentially I want communities to have the freedom to decide on the type and quantity of housing without external restrictions imposed by a centralised planning system. The English villages that captivate the world's imagination were largely built at a time before a planning system existed. They were built by local people to meet their needs.
'I want to unlock the passions and drive of communities. I want to free them to realise their vision.'
As for the detail, we don't know yet, but he has said in interviews that a majority of 80% or 90% of the local community would be needed.
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
Anonymous | 03/08/2010 11:58 am
Maybe Shapps wants to take us back to the days of the squire. How will this work in urban communities? I feel Shapps is making this up as he goes along!
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment