Glorious DoubleThink from the Local Government Association, reported by the BBC:
... the Local Government Association, which represents councils in England and Wales, warned that the move [to liberalise planning/change of use restrictions] could alter the face of High Streets for the worse without residents being able to have their say.
"We have been clear that if we are to get people back out shopping in their local town centres we need to give them more say on what type of businesses and shops open there,"; said Mike Jones, chairman of the association's housing board. "Instead from today they will have less. Planning controls were not designed to make life difficult for business but to act as a "democratic quality control", he added.
"Most people would be more inclined to visit their local High Streets if they saw a resurgence in the sort of cherished local, good-quality shops, restaurants and businesses which can be at the very heart of communities. Instead, this blanket national policy will make it easier than ever for High Streets to become ghettos for clusters of 'here today, gone tomorrow' money lenders and betting shops."
Clearly, whatever democratically decided restrictions you impose, these cannot dictate which shops WILL open, they can only dictate which type of shops WILL NOT open. And there is such a thing as consumer choice:
If there is demand for "cherished local, good quality shops etc" then enteprising businessmen will open them. If there is demand for "here today, gone tomorrow money lenders and betting shops" then enterprising businessmen will open those instead. Simply preventing the latter category of shop from opening up is no guarantee that the former category will open instead. The chances are the premises will just stay vacant until they are re-opened as charity shops (to take advantage of the Business Rates discounts).
I don't know the exact figure, but on a decent High Street with a few dozen shops, restaurants etc, how many of those does any one individual actually visit? Not many, probably only three or four. How many of those shops are visited regularly by at least half of local residents? Not many, probably two or three.
So if each shop's existence required democratic approval, i.e. each resident is asked "Do you need or want Shop X? Do you need or want Shop Y?" them most of them would be shut down.
Or to paraphrase The Stigler, "we don't want the tide to come in, but we refuse to pay for a sea wall".
Once I dipt into the future
2 hours ago
15 comments:
I've always found this aspect of 'planning' puzzling. A great many traditional high streets came about organically in the Victorian period (or before) without any help from officialdom.
Look, if a town/council wanted a vibrant high street they should cut business rates - they'd have retailers queuing up. They should also bring back free parking - they'd have customers queuing to shop there or be willing to spend a couple of hours browsing around instead of rushing before their parking ticket expires.
It seems to me that the people with the power to actually rescue the high street are the very ones who have done most to kill them off.
"cut business rates"
You've done it now, JP. I'll leave the rebuttal to the professionals.
Also O/T Mark, but I think landvaluetax.org is using your work (KLN 304) without attribution.
JP, no, they should set business rates at 100% of the site rental value (but not so as to eat into the building rental value). That might mean reduction in some areas and increases in others.
Apart from that, agreed, and hooray for having plenty of short-term free parking.
RA, no, Henry and I co-wrote that (i.e. we bodged my original KLN 304) and I now get an attribution.
---------------
What I forgot to add to the post is the observation that "local democracy" cannot possibly dictate which shops WILL open, it can only ever dictate which shops WON'T open.
"Local democracy" cannot simply vote for there to be "more quality local businesses" and wait for it magically to happen.
So if each shop's existence required democratic approval, i.e. each resident is asked "Do you need or want Shop X? Do you need or want Shop Y?" them most of them would shut down.
You'd get some weird results as stated vs revealed preference would happen.
I'd almost guarantee that people would say "butchers" over "Ann Summers", despite the fact that we know in reality than Ann Summers shops are more viable, because of their margins.
But also people have a certain amount of self-idealisation. People like the idea of leisurely shopping in their town, being on first name terms with the butcher and baker, but when reality hits, they go to Tesco.
The problem is that people want there to be lots of "quality local businesses"; a butcher, a greengrocer, a fishmonger, a deli/grocer etc etc, but they also want these businesses to be cheaper than the local supermarkets. They want to do their weekly shop in the supermarket and pop into the "quality local business" for the occasional piece of meat or veg, or pot of chutney. It's the same with village shops, rural bus services, rural railway lines, small town theatres etc; people want them to be there so that they can use them on a very occasional basis, but they are not prepared to pay the extra to use them regularly. As ever, it's "other people" who are supposed to do that.
That thing called revealed preference.
John,
"They should also bring back free parking - they'd have customers queuing to shop there or be willing to spend a couple of hours browsing around instead of rushing before their parking ticket expires. "
You sometimes can't have free - the initial reason for paid parking was to ration parking. But, councils see it as a source of income, or in the case of Labour in Swindon, they raised parking prices as a "green deterrent", so people would take the bus to town. Actual result? People went to out-of-town shopping instead.
The Conservative group, to their credit, massively lowered the parking charges (£2 for 4 hours).
Personally, it would be hard to get me back to town. I've got better things to do than walk around shops in the daylight or take time out of work when I can click a few buttons.
JP, TS, we covered parking and did parking charges a while ago. I've nothing more to add.
B, as usual, you have nailed it.
Great piece on parking charges Mark... I'd missed that one previously.
JP, ta, it was a joint effort.
I'll get this over quickly: British retail was developed in a system of Resale Price Maintenance by which manufacturers entered into freely contracted agreements by which one side undertook to supply things at a fixed price and the shops agreed not to sell at a discount. This meant that you could get all the premium branded goods at the same price in the little shop round the corner as at the "chain stores" which encouraged decentralised shops.
This system was kiboshed by Edward Heath in 1964 because it was strictly outlawed (from the beginning) by the Common Market which he wanted to enter while all the big retailers wanted to develop supermarkets. Resale Price Maintenance is now legal in the USA following the Leegin case in the Supreme Court (2007).
Helen Mercer gives all the details of the UK case in her LSE paper on "The abolition of Resale Price Maintenance" on Net which she concludes by saying that the abolition ruined British retail AND British manufacturing by breaking the tied arrangements .If you want to see active persecution of business by the "authorities" read up on current cases of RPM prosecutions.
DBC: "a system of Resale Price Maintenance by which manufacturers entered into freely contracted agreements by which one side undertook to supply things at a fixed price and the shops agreed not to sell at a discount."
Sounds like a splendid system, but as it was "freely contracted" I see no reason to stop them "freely contracting" to reinstate all this, no need for the government to stick its nose in.
@ MW
If the supplier stipulates the price he wants his product sold at the shop cannot agree; if it were to do so ,it too could be done for RPM offences by the "EU and UK regulators". The penalty is a hefty fine: 10% of a company's worldwide turnover. It is hard -wired into the European system as is the growth and stability pact outlawing Keynesian demand stimulus; the EU services directive enforcing privatisation etc. Such a pity UKIP got hold of the anti-European agenda!
+
DBC, well then join YPP. We hate the EU for the right reasons.
RPM benefits small retailers. And it hurts big ones.
But more important, it hurts consumers. In practice, it meant wholesalers (not manufacturers) using the system to screw retailers and customers and drive prices up.
Good riddance to it.
Post a Comment