Rural Regeneration and Localism: A case study of Northumberland A Thesis presented for the Degree of Doctor of Philosophy at the University of Newcastle Elizabeth L. Juppenlatz School of Architecture, Planning and Landscape April, 2015 Abstract The Localism Act (2011) was intended to bring about radical decentralisation, encompassing reforms to the planning system to make it clearer, more democratic and effective. Neighbourhood planning was introduced to address the democratic deficit experienced by communities under previous governments. Neighbourhood plans, the main plank of the new legislation and intended as a robust addition to the plan hierarchy, were envisaged as empowering and enabling communities to control the type of development in their area. This research focusses on the delivery of neighbourhood plans from the perspectives of policy actors, planners and communities. With Northumberland forming the main case study, three sub-case studies have been used; two neighbourhood plan Front Runners are compared with the successful rural regeneration initiatives of a Development Trust. These are used to examine the extent to which the neighbourhood planning process is bringing about the changes vaunted by the government. The research was conducted using semi-structured, in-depth interviews and content analysis together with participatory and visual appraisal tools in the case study areas in the north and west of Northumberland. Drawing on collaborative planning theory and theories of neo-endogenous rural development, the research indicates that, through the collaborative processes of delivering neighbourhood plans, a regeneration of local governance institutions may be emerging. This thesis argues, however, that the processes of localism, expressed through neighbourhood planning, cut across entrenched patterns of land-use, land ownership and power relations in Northumberland. The thesis also argues that to fully understand the processes of localism and neighbourhood planning, the underlying socio-economic and political context in which neighbourhood plans are developed must also be considered. It is further contended that the decentralisation, community empowerment and control of development promised through the new localism legislation remain largely rhetoric and a guise for centralist control. i Acknowledgements This research was made possible through an APL funded studentship and I would like to thank the Department for its support. I would also like to thank my supervisors, Professor Mark Shucksmith and Dr Nicola Thompson for their invaluable support, guidance and encouragement throughout and for pointing me in the right direction initially. Grateful thanks must also go to my progress panel, Dr Andrew Donaldson and Dr Jane Midgley who provided the necessary signposts and milestones and who have also assisted over the years in keeping me on track. Also in the Department, thanks are due to Geoff Vigar, Patsy Healey, Andy Law and Dave Webb who have helped to broaden my horizons academically and also made the intellectual journey that much more enjoyable. Also many thanks are due to Marian Kyte for being such a rock in occasionally turbulent times. My thanks also go to CRE and to all those who have contributed to and supported the Neo-Endogenous Group (NeRD), including Menelaos Gkartzios, Karen Scott, Hilary Talbot, Paul Cowie, Amy Proctor and particularly to Carmen Hubbard and Philip Lowe for opening up new theoretical directions. I also owe Sally Hewitt much thanks for her assistance in the early stages of this thesis. This research would not have been possible without the cooperation and enthusiasm of the participants who gave up their time for my endless questions and requests for information. I would particularly like to thank Professor Keith Shaw, Cllr Colin Burns, Peter Biggers, Sue Bevan, Chris Anderson, Tom Johnston, Joanne Garrick, Iain Hedley, Kevin Bartlett, David Francis, Peter Biggers, Sue Patience and Darrell Jackson for their patience, forbearance and for so readily sharing their knowledge. Finally, a huge thanks must also go to Steven, family and friends who watched me disappear into a ’bunker’ for months on end but who reminded me that there is such a thing as life beyond a PhD. ii CONTENTS List of Abbreviations and Acronyms List of Figures and Tables Chapter 1. Introduction 1 1.1 Introduction 1 1.2 The Research Question 2 1.3 The Research Context: Localism and Neighbourhood Planning 4 1.4 The Rural Context, Rural Development and Theorising the ‘rural’ 6 1.5 Structure of Thesis 7 Chapter 2. The Research Methodology 11 2.1 Introduction 11 2.2 The Research Paradigm 11 2.2.1 Researcher orientation 11 2.2.2 Ontology 12 2.2.3 Epistemology 13 2.3 Methodological Approach and Rationale 14 2.3.1 Applying Grounded Theory 16 2.3.2 The case study 19 2.4 Methodological Procedures 23 2.5 Ethical Considerations 29 2.6 Reflections on the Research Process 32 2.6.1 Research reflexivity 32 2.6.2 Limitations of the study 34 2.7 Conclusions 34 Chapter 3. The Theoretical Context 36 3.1 Introduction 36 3.2 Theoretical Frameworks for Localism 37 3.2.1 Theoretical models of localism 37 3.2.2 Phases of localism 40 iii 3.2.3 Other localisms 53 3.3 Neoliberalism 55 3.4 Localism and Collaborative Planning: The Theoretical Context 57 3.4.1 Collaborative planning under localism 58 3.4.2 Collaborative governance, networks and power 60 3.4.3 Localism and community empowerment 62 3.5 Rural Development Approaches and Theories 64 3.6 Conclusions 70 Chapter 4. The Policy and Planning Context 73 4.1 Introduction 73 4.2 History of Localism 73 4.3 Localism and Planning Reform 78 4.4 Rural Development Policy in England 92 4.4.1 Rural development policy in England 1997-2000 92 4.4.2 Rural development policy in England since 2010 97 4.4.3 DEFRA and rural development policy 98 .4 DEFRA and the RDPE 101 4.5 DEFRA, LEPs and the RDPE: 2014–2020 101 4.6 Conclusion: Rural Governance - and a ‘rural’ Big Society? 104 Chapter 5. Localism and Neighbourhood Planning: Alnwick and Denwick Neighbourhood Plan 107 5.1 Introduction 107 5.2 Background 107 5.3 Socio-economic Profile and Demography 110 5.4 Local Government Institutions 111 5.5 Preparing the ADNP 111 5.6 Neighbourhood Planning Issues for Alnwick and Denwick 113 5.7 ADNP Case Study Findings and Analysis 118 5.7.1 Community and stakeholder engagement 118 5.7.2 Community capacity 122 5.7.3 Neighbourhood plan governance 124 5.7.4 Affordable housing and developer involvement 127 5.8 Conclusions 132 iv Chapter 6. Localism and Neighbourhood Planning: Tarset and Greystead Neighbourhood Plan 135 6.1 Introduction 135 6.2 Background 135 6.3 Socio-economic Profile and Demography 137 6.4 Local Government Institutions 138 6.5 Preparing the TGNDP 138 6.6 Neighbourhood Planning issues for Tarset and Greystead 141 6.7 Analysis of Case Study Findings 146 6.7.1 Community and stakeholder engagement 146 6.7.2 Community capacity 148 6.7.3 Affordable housing and developer involvement 150 6.7.4 Neighbourhood development plan governance 152 6.7.5 TGNDP Consultation Document 156 6.8 Conclusions 158 Chapter 7. Localism and Neighbourhood Planning: Glendale Gateway Trust 161 7.1 Introduction 161 7.2 Background 161 7.3 Socio-economic Data and Demography 163 7.4 Local Government Institutions and Partnerships 163 7.5 The Glendale Gateway Trust 164 7.6 Case Study Findings and Analysis 170 7.7 Conclusions 180 Chapter 8. Localism and Neighbourhood Planning in Northumberland 183 8.1 Introduction 183 8.2 Neighbourhood Planning - Experiences at the Ground Level 185 8.3 Neighbourhood planning – a Neo-endogenous Endeavour? 194 8.4 Neighbourhood Planning, Collaborative Planning and Governance 204 8.5 Conclusions 219 v Chapter 9. Conclusions 223 9.1 Introduction 223 9.2 Key Empirical Findings 225 9.3 Academic Implications 236 9.4 Policy Implications 243 9.5 Implications for Future Research 244 9.6 Conclusions 245 List of References 245 Annex A 274 Annex B 277 Annex C 279 vi List of Abbreviations and Acronyms ACDT Alnwick Community Development Trust ACP Alnwick Community Partnership ADT Amble Development Trust AMT Action for Market Towns ANDP Alnwick and Denwick Neighbourhood Plan ASHE Annual Survey of Hours and Earnings ATC Alnwick Town Council BIS Department for Business, Innovation and Skills CA Countryside Agency CAP Common Agricultural Policy CAP Common Agricultural Policy CDT Community Development Trust CPA Comprehensive Performance Assessment CEC Commission of the European Communities CLG Department of Local Government and Communities CLP Community-Led Planning CRC Commission for Rural Communities DETR Department for Environment Transport and the Regions DT Development Trust EAFRD European Agricultural Fund for Rural Development EAGGF European Agricultural Guidance and Guarantee Fund ERDF European Regional Development Fund ESDP European Spatial Development Perspective ESF European Social Fund EU European Union FMD Foot and Mouth Disease FoNDT Federation of Northumberland Development Trusts GCF Glendale Community Forum GDHI Gross Domestic Household Income GDP Gross Domestic Product GRDC Glendale Rural District Council GGPC Glendale Group of Parish Councils GGT Glendale Gateway Trust HCA Homes and Communities Agency HMG HM Government ICT Information and Communication Technology IIED International Institute for Environment and Development LAG Local Action Group LDF Local Development Framework LDS Local Development Strategy LEADER Liaison Entre Actions de Développement de l'Économie Rurale LEC Local Enterprise Company LEP Local Enterprise