Think global, localism act

That may sound like Yoda's re-interpretation of a well-known sustainability slogan, but in fact it refers to a Parliamentary bill which today became the Localism Act 2011.

The RSPB has been a leading member of the Greenest Planning Ever coalition which has been campaigning on what was the Localism Bill for the last year, and until May this year it was my privilege to chair this group.

The Localism Act is principally about devolving power from Government in Westminster to local authorities and neighbourhoods. It introduces significant changes to the planning system in England by abolishing the Infrastructure Planning Commission, allows for the abolition of regional strategies, introduces a new 'duty to cooperate' for public bodies and a completely new system of neighbourhood planning.

Debate in Parliament on the bill was somewhat overshadowed by the public furore on the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) this autumn, but the two are closely linked.

There are many issues I could comment on, some good, some less so. To start on a positive note, it's worth remembering that as part of another NGO planning coalition back in 2007 (at one stage we called ourselves the Planning Disaster coalition) we campaigned against the unelected Infrastructure Planning Commission (IPC). We lost the argument then in what became the Planning Act 2008, but our points were supported by the Conservative opposition and were carried forward into Government policy after the 2010 election. The IPC will now be merged with the Planning Inspectorate, which is ultimately responsible to the elected Secretary of State. So in the end, we won.

The end is less clear for the future of sustainable development, one of the key areas of debate on the Localism Act. Our hopes for a robust definition to be written into the Act were dashed, despite many attempts by Liberal Democrat and Labour MPs and peers to do this.

The Act was a golden opportunity to lay the ground work for a planning system based on robust principles for sustainable development, which integrates the needs of people, the economy and the environment. Without this legal definition in place we are facing the prospect of a system which gives the economy a trump card and fails to protect the green spaces that enrich our lives and allow nature to thrive.

Our only hope now is that the final version of the NPPF contains a strong definition of sustainable development, which should be based on the five guiding principles of the 2005 UK Sustainable Development Strategy. Being more positive, the Government has accepted that the strategy still stands. This is also exactly what the Environmental Audit Committee of the House of Commons recommended after holding an inquiry specifically on the issue. Just in case you've forgotten what five principles are, here they are:

• Living within environmental limits – Respecting the limit’s of the planet’s environment, resources and biodiversity – to improve our environment and ensure that the natural resources needed for life are unimpaired and remain so for future generations
• Ensuring a strong, healthy and just society – meeting the diverse needs of all people in existing and future communities, promoting personal wellbeing, social cohesion and inclusion, and creating equal opportunity for all
• Achieving a sustainable economy – building a strong, stable and sustainable economy which provides prosperity and opportunities for all, and in which environmental and social costs fall on those who impose them (polluter pays), and efficient resource use is incentivised
• Promoting good governance – actively promoting effective, participative systems of governance in all levels of society – engaging people’s creativity, energy, and diversity
• Using sound science responsibly – ensuring policy is developed and implemented on the basis of strong scientific evidence, whilst taking into account scientific uncertainty (through the precautionary principle)  

There's more, much more, including the future of strategic planning, neighbourhood plans, and a little section in the Act on local finance which is causing more than a little concern. But more of that another day.