Subversive Localism?

Thus far, we have explored how the group of independent town councillors, the Independents for Frome (IfF) cultivated their internal governance and worked with stakeholders to whet an appetite for development alternatives. This included using Frome’s Neighbourhood Plan to achieve to enable relocalised development using the powers of the Localism Act 2011. We now turn to examine whether localism can indeed be used for purposes (in the works of Flatpack Democracy’s founder, Peter Macfadyen) “not quite as it intended” and question what the conditions of using localism effectively are, particularly for more ‘subversive’ political and placemaking objectives - which is particularly pertinent for communities seeking to potentially replicate Frome’s approach to sustainable placemaking. We reveal the strategies - and challenges - of utilising certain rights under localism to enable community-led development and the crucial role that certain (qualified) intermediaries play in igniting the conditions for change. In Frome’s case, the longstanding development issue of a redundant large town centre site, Saxonvale, acted as a beacon of hope and the arena to contest alternative development models. The recent Mayday Saxonvale scheme is a comprehensive, innovative community-led masterplan, which includes proposals for the UK’s first ‘tiny homes’ community and has a community investment model linked to generating social value in the town. We explore the unusual battle of the Mayday scheme to fend off another set of proposals by a rival (mainstream) property developer that was endorsed by the former district council in a successful judicial review procedure (despite this ruling the alternative scheme is still not guaranteed, for reasons we discuss). We examine the role that localism played in underpinning these pathways, and that - while initially being sceptical of whether localism can deliver what it promised - without it, the conditions the Frome-led ‘Mayday Saxonavale’ scheme may have very different. This chapter highlights i) the importance of local capacities and those of their supporters (such as ‘strategic intermediaries’) to unlock protracted development challenges; ii) the importance of positive inter-governmental linkages where local authorities act positively to enable comprehensive development; and iii) the critical need for communities to own assets to influence the economics of development and investment in landholdings that otherwise might be preventing alternative, community-led schemes from taking root.