The coalition government's big idea is the 'big society'. During the election campaign, and since they have been in government, the Conservatives have made much of the notion that it is better for local communities to make their own decisions, rather than have 'big government' decide for them.
This is an idea which is pretty familiar in Headingley, where much of active residents' energy goes into resisting 'big government'. And the rest goes into our own initiatives, like the Farmers Market, the Natural Food Store, HEART and so on, all of which are initiatives by Headingley Development Trust (which has the largest development trust membership in the country).
The government has recognised Headingley's efforts. In a press notice on Friday, 23 July, Housing Minister Grant Shapps announced new initiatives to support a 'Community Right to Build'.
He said: "...up and down the country there are entire communities willing and eager to give the go-ahead for new developments in their area." And he gave a list of a dozen examples of "communities working together to develop their local area" - one of which is Headingley, where "a trust has been set up to redress the balance of housing in Headingley to the benefit of permanent residents, and is seeking to acquire, and in some cases renovate, properties for local residents."
Another major 'big society' effort was Leeds HMO Lobby's campaign, with colleagues nationally, to enable local communities to control the impact of houses in multiple occupation (HMOs).
This is where housing has become unbalanced - to the extent that Headingley has been identified in a report by Sheffield University as having the worst community cohesion in the country.
"This was surely 'big society' in action!?"
After 10 years campaigning, local residents did get 'big government' to listen, and in April this year, to bring in new rules on HMOs. This was surely 'big society' in action!?
In the election campaign, Grant Shapps, then Shadow Housing Minister, came to Headingley, to reassure us he supported our initiative.
But in 40 days, now he is in government, he announced new proposals, which take us two steps back. The legislation will be left in place - but it will be suspended. Any council which wants to use it will have to bring in an 'Article 4 Direction', to 'opt in' to the legislation - but this is an unsuitable procedure, which will also make councils who use it liable to compensation.
Is this proposal workable?
The Lobby has said this is unworkable. So has Leeds City Council. So have professional planners, MPs, councils and residents, all round the country.
Instead, we have proposed an alternative procedure, which will enable councils who wish it to 'opt out' of the legislation, by using 'Local Development Orders' (LDOs).
In the House of Commons, on 19 July, the government said:
"We are currently considering a number of matters that have been raised in relation to those proposals. The question of whether LDOs or Article 4 Directions are the most suitable tool for managing HMOs on a targeted basis is part of that consideration … as mentioned in the Budget, we intend to promote the greater use of local development orders where appropriate as part of a shift to a more locally driven planning regime."
So we await the outcome. Will local control of HMOs be weakened? Will the Big Society's campaign be upheld? Or will it be over-ruled by Big Government? Is the Big Society a 'big con'? Did the Minister really mean it? Or are we back to Big (Con) Government?
Leeds HMO's full response to the conculation on changes to planning legislation for houses in multiple occupation can be found here.
Dr Richard Tyler, Leeds HMO Lobby
