Devolution means spatial development strategies for everyone 

New mayors and geographies have, predictably, been the focus of much of the coverage of the devolution white paper published earlier this week. 

It was inevitably going to be the case, because these are the things that people generally understand. Most people know who Andy Burnham is, and consequently have a view on whether they want a version of him for where they live. And obviously people know where they live, and tend to have a view on the geographic footprint that the council providing services to them should cover. I wrote about that latter point here. 

For local government hacks like me there are some welcome proposals that aren’t as headline-grabbing too. Like: 

• Multi-year funding settlements for Councils 

• Streamlining of the process to introduce selective private landlord licensing 

• Strengthening of the standards regime to deal with poor behaviour by elected members 

• Improvements to the failed audit regime which saw 99% of English council fail to pubish audited accounts by the required deadline in 2022/23 

These boring, but necessary, changes show that there are now ministers in MHCLG providing leadership to the department who understand Local Government. 

However, for investors, planners and developers, the most interesting of the boring-but-necessary proposals is the plan to create a universal system of strategic planning. 

In simple terms, the government wants everywhere to be covered by a strategic plan like the Greater Manchester Spatial Framework (GMSF). Yes, I did say the GMSF and not Places for Everyone, as the former was a Spatial Development Strategy (SDS) while the latter is a joint Development Plan Document (DPD). The Government wants the development of SDS’ to be led by strategic authorities, the combined authorities. Where these do not exist the Government will define groups of upper tier county councils and unitary authorities that must work together. 

The steps being taken to achieve this are something that will likely raise eyebrows in a few places in the north. This is because, in a letter to Local Government Leaders, Minster of State Jim McMahon said that the Government will legislate for intervention powers “to intervene where plans are not forthcoming in the timeline”. 

In Lancashire, disagreements over how they wish to work together are well-rehearsed, and so it seems likely that these intervention powers will come into play there. Equally, with Stockport’s withdrawal from the GMSF, the strategic plan covering the other nine authorities technically doesn’t fit the government’s criteria, as it is a DPD rather than an SDS. The government may therefore intervene and put Stockport back in a GM-wide plan. Both areas can be expected to protest at this. 

So, for developers, investors and planners, the government is legislating to provide something that there has not been for a while in planning: certainty. However, getting there is likely still to be a challenging process, not least with the disruption of, and likely opposition to, Local Government reorganisation at the same time. 

Sean Fielding is an Associate Director with political consultants Cavendish Consulting. He previously served as Leader of Oldham Council 2018-21 and currently serves as a Local Government Councillor in Bolton. For more information on devolution and local government, he can be contacted on sean.fielding@cavendishconsulting.com