Although at first glance the provisions of the Localism Bill may seem attractive, with power devolved to communities, there are aspects and consequences that have not been thought through. This is typical of so many apparently good ideas. In this case the thinking behind the Bill is an attempt to change the relationship between government, local authorities and the people.

Local councils will be able to attempt, as we have seen recently with GCC, to transfer the cost of running services such as libraries to community groups. Even if closing a service by a local authority proves legal (and there is a challenge pending) and a community group succeeds in taking it over, the authority will retain the power to scrutinise how any transfer of power is working in practice. In the final analysis it will remain the accountable body.

Another problem for the local authority will be in providing staff and the time to advise and facilitate any transfer and one can envisage even more bureaucracy entering the system. This will increase costs and the people who will foot the bill are local taxpayers.

The expectations of community groups could be raised to levels that are unsustainable. Tendering for council services is a complex business and groups would find themselves in competition with private companies who can afford to employ experienced staff. Indeed, bidding for a community service could have the effect of triggering private companies to compete and thus inadvertently lead to privatisation.

In planning there will be similar problems. Although community groups can suggest neighbourhood planning orders they will have to work within local planning authorities and plans will first have to be approved by them. Moreover, a 'group' has to be constitutionally recognised by the local authority – it cannot be just a few people in a community.

In effect, this will mean parish councils in rural areas. More work for the parish clerk increases costs again. Any approved neighbourhood plan will then be examined by an independent inspector and, if agreed by him, be subject to a local referendum resulting in further bureaucracy and further cost. What percentage of residents would have to respond to a referendum to ensure its validity has not yet been defined. A referendum may be refused by the local authority on the grounds that sufficient consultation has taken place and there is apparently no right of appeal.

Other discrepancies were raised in the House of Lords second reading of the Bill. Communities may bid for an asset that is being disposed of but not, for example, for a pub whose landlord wishes for a change of use to a residence when the pub has not been offered for sale.

Thus the community asset could still be lost unless the community is granted the power to force a sale on these grounds. In some villages landowners allow cricket to be played on their land, or a farmer allows car parking on his field. Because these could be viewed as community assets it is entirely possible that the people concerned will withdraw these privileges to avoid being caught by the Bill as it is unclear whether a group could bid for these assets even if the owners did not wish to sell.

No definition of a community asset has yet been offered although this will be essential, together with exactly what rights a community has over any perceived asset, particularly when this is owned by a private individual. A forest of legal challenges looms and one may imagine lawyers rubbing their hands together in anticipation.

As with all laws, the devil is in the detail and the detail needs clarification before the Bill passes into law.

– Dr Daphne Pearson, 27 Tinman's Green, Redbrook.