EXAMINATION OF SOUTH WORCESTERSHIRE DEVELOPMENT PLAN MATTER 2 : THE DUTY TO CO-OPERATE IN THE PLANNING OF SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT

Size: px

Start display at page:

Download "EXAMINATION OF SOUTH WORCESTERSHIRE DEVELOPMENT PLAN MATTER 2 : THE DUTY TO CO-OPERATE IN THE PLANNING OF SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT"

Gwenda Townsend
5 years ago
Views:

1 Home Builders Federation Respondent No Matter 2 EXAMINATION OF SOUTH WORCESTERSHIRE DEVELOPMENT PLAN MATTER 2 : THE DUTY TO CO-OPERATE IN THE PLANNING OF SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT Inspector s text / questions in bold. Main issue: Whether or not the legal requirements imposed by S33A of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004 (as amended) have been met in the preparation of the Plan. Questions: 1)Is there clear evidence that, in the preparation of the Plan, the Councils have engaged constructively, actively and on an on-going basis with neighbouring authorities and prescribed bodies on strategic matters and issues with cross-boundary impacts? 2) Does the Plan taken adequate account of development requirements that cannot be wholly met in neighbouring areas, including the West Midlands conurbation and north Gloucestershire? Section 33(A) of the Planning & Compulsory Purchase Act 2004 as amended by Section 110 of the Localism Act 2011 provides for a duty on LPAs to cooperate with each other and other prescribed bodies. This co-operation includes constructive and active engagement as part of an on-going process to maximise effective working on the preparation of development plan documents in relation to strategic matters including sustainable development that would have significant wider impacts. At examination of development plan documents (DPD) LPAs will have to provide evidence that they have fully complied with this duty if their plans are not to be rejected by an examiner. The Duty to Co-operate is reinforced by Paragraphs 17, 157 and 178 of the NPPF, whereby neighbouring authorities should work jointly together and cooperate to address planning issues which cross administrative boundaries and on matters that are larger than local issues. Moreover in accordance with Paragraph 181 of the NPPF, LPAs are expected to demonstrate evidence of having effectively co-operated to plan for issues with cross boundary impacts when their Local Plans are submitted for examination. This co-operation should be continuous from engagement on initial thinking through to implementation. Whilst the Localism Act nor the NPPF do not define co-operation, the Planning Inspector, Andrew Mead, in finding that the Duty to Co-operate on the North London Waste Management Plan had not been satisfied by the respective London Borough Councils involved, referred to the dictionary definition meaning to work together, to concur in producing an effect. The Inspector also noted that the NPPF refers to co-operation rather than Page 1

2 consultation, therefore it is reasonable to assume that engagement as part of co-operation is more than a process of consultation (Paragraphs Appendix 1 North London Waste Plan Inspectors Report March 2013). The HBF commends the three LPAs of Worcester City Council, Malvern Hills and Wychavon District Council s for working together to produce a joint development plan. However the South Worcestershire authorities adjoin nine other neighbouring authorities namely Stratford upon Avon District Council, Redditch Borough Council, Bromsgrove District Council, Wyre Forest District Council, Shropshire Council, Herefordshire Council, Forest of Dean District Council, Tewkesbury Borough Council and Cotswolds District Council with whom the South Worcestershire authorities must also demonstrate on-going and collaborative working relationships with under the Duty to Co-operate. The SWDP is also located at the junction of more than one HMA. The Reasoned Justification under Policy SWDP3 is insufficient evidence to discharge the legal obligations imposed by the Duty to Co-operate. Whilst the three authorities have worked with each other and authorities in the Worcestershire HMA, there remain many unresolved issues on strategic matters with cross boundary implications. The urban renaissance theme of the former WMRSS only remains valid if all twenty three local authorities within the West Midlands region continue to abide by the former WMRSS in terms of overall housing numbers and spatial strategy. Since the revocation of WMRSS on 20 th May 2013, there has been a significant drop in the collective level of housing provision envisaged by Local Planning Authorities (LPA) across the region. The overall proposed housing provision across the region is estimated to have fallen by -8%. Recent research by the HBF shows that in total all the adopted and emerging plans for the West Midlands will only provide for 17,085 homes per year compared to the WMRSS target of 19,795 per annum. So it is not business as usual post revocation of WMRSS. The former WMRSS was informed by an objective of urban renaissance, whereby the Major Urban Areas (MUA) would absorb large numbers of future projected households from across the region. Unfortunately today, this strategy is beginning to unravel as it emerges that the West Midland MUAs will not be accommodating large numbers of new homes. MUAs such as Coventry and Birmingham are demonstrating an unwillingness (Coventry) or inability (Birmingham) to accommodate substantial housing numbers within the existing conurbations potentially undermining the previous urban renaissance strategy. Birmingham City Council s most recent objective assessment of housing need indicates a requirement for between 80,000 to 105,000 new homes over its revised plan period with only sufficient land (including windfalls) within in its own administrative area to accommodate 43,000 new homes. At the minimum housing need of 80,000 as proposed in the City Councils plan there is an unmet need of 35,000 dwellings. Page 2

3 Even though Birmingham is not an immediate neighbouring authority, it is unlikely that South Worcestershire will remain entirely immune from the housing pressures occurring within the wider West Midlands region as a consequence of the revocation of the WMRSS. It is understood that Birmingham City Council remains of the view that further dialogue is necessary in relation to the emerging shortfall of housing in Birmingham, which the City Council has highlighted in response to recent consultations on the SWDP. Whilst there is evidence of an overall under supply of housing across the region as measured against the revoked WMRSS housing targets, there is also evidence of an under provision of housing supply in neighbouring authorities illustrated by cross referencing housing requirements set out in adopted and emerging Plans against objective assessments of housing need identified in SHMAAs. The recent consultation on housing growth in Stratford upon Avon proposed to increase the District housing requirement for from 8,000 to 9,500 new homes. However the evidence in the Housing Provision Options Study 2012 Update Final Report dated January 2013 prepared by consultants G L Hearn, which provides updated information on the earlier Strategic Housing Market Areas assessment, indicates an increase in households of between 8,000 and 13,000 in Stratford upon Avon District. Therefore at this time it should not be assumed that 9,500 new homes is the correct figure, in due course at examination, this figure may be found unsound. In Bromsgrove District Council, the Draft Core Strategy 2 dated January 2011 proposes for the period between 6,000-7,000 dwellings compared to a range of between 6,244 and 9,122 identified in the Worcestershire SHMA by GVA and Edge Analytics. Likewise for Redditch Borough Council, the Worcestershire SHMA dated February 2012 in Appendix 4 Redditch SHMA Overview Report in Figure 3.13 proposes for the plan period between 5,120 dwellings (270 dwellings per annum) based on Sensitivity Scenario 1 and 8,620 dwellings (450 dwellings per annum) based on Sensitivity Scenario 2. Policy 4 Housing Provision of the Redditch Borough Plan proposes around 6,380 dwellings (335 dwellings per year) over the plan period ( ) of which 3,000 will be in Redditch and 3,400 adjacent to Redditch town but located in Bromsgrove District Council. This is a midway point between the lower and upper ranges identified in the SHMA. In Herefordshire, the Local Housing Requirement Study July 2011 by GL Hearn modelled 8 different scenarios ranged from 2,343 dwellings (zero net migration) to 21,043 dwellings (economic led growth). Policy SS2 Delivering New Homes proposes a total of only 16,500 dwellings (810 per year) over the plan period ( ) in Herefordshire. The Council states it is proposing a mid-point figure, which will maintain the working population and accommodate economic growth of less than 5%. Page 3

4 In the recent consultation of housing growth Cotswold District Council stated it is proposed that the development strategy should aim to accommodate 6,900 dwellings over the 20 year period in the District s most sustainable settlements. This proposed housing figure is derived from A Review of Future Housing Requirements for Cotswold District report dated February 2013 by Keith Woodhead, which sets out a job-led housing requirement range between 5,000 6,800 dwellings and a demand led / trend growth projection of between 6,000 7,100 dwellings. The Council s preference is the job-led requirement upper range figure of 6,800 plus 100 dwellings for the previous shortfall in housing provision. Nathaniel Lichfield & Partners (NPL) Assessment of Housing Needs for Gloucester, Cheltenham and Tewkesbury Joint Core Strategy (GCT JCS) dated September 2012 identified an objective assessment of housing need between 32,500 43,500 dwellings. A 2013 updated NLP report recommends 37,400 dwellings based on an economic led scenario of planning for 28,000 new jobs. However the three authorities have been reluctant to accept these figures preferring to pursue a demographic led approach assessing their housing need as 33,200 dwellings with only 21,000 new jobs. These proposed lower figures are contrary to the NLP recommendations but also against the Gloucestershire LEP s Growth Statement, which proposes 28,000 jobs and 37,400 new homes in North Gloucestershire. Whilst it is understood that the Gloucestershire District Councils are preparing a new SHMA to be carried out by consultants HDH Planning & Development for which an initial consultation event was held on 9 th May At this time there is no known date for completion of the work and until completion of this work it is not possible to confirm whether or not the housing needed by the GCT JCS can all be met within its boundaries. It is understood that GCT JCS authorities have lodged objections to the proposed low housing provision in SWDP. Therefore there is serious concern that North Gloucestershire is not planning for its own needs and there is no agreement between North Gloucestershire and South Worcestershire on accommodating unmet housing needs. The Forest of Dean Local Plan was adopted in February 2013 with a housing figure similar to the revoked SWRP. The Shropshire Core Strategy was adopted in February 2011 with a housing requirement aligned with revoked WMRSS housing target. The Wyre Forest Core Strategy was adopted in December 2010 with a housing figure in accordance with the former WMRSS. The Examination of the Site Allocations & Policies Local Plan Document has been concluded and the Inspectors report issued in May It is understood that Wyre Forest Council has expresses concerns over housing numbers and distribute of housing in the SWDP. In view of the above facts the statement in the Reasoned Justification for Policy SWDP3 is strongly disputed, which states Neighbouring local planning authorities have provided no evidence of unmet housing need in their areas that needs to be met in south Worcestershire. No evidence has yet been provided that indicates forthcoming plan-making in those areas cannot Page 4

5 accommodate their own needs or would result in unmet need that has to be provided for in the SWDP area. In fact Policy SWDP2I defers responsibilities under the Duty to Co-operate by stating the SWDP will give due consideration to housing proposals that are intended to meet the clearly identified needs of a neighbouring planning authority and that are set out in an adopted Local Plan. The Reasoned Justification continues if neighbouring authorities can demonstrate through their local plan process that there is a genuine need that can only be met through provision in the South Worcestershire area, this can be addressed through a review of the SWDP in This approach is contrary to the Duty to Co-operate as set out in Section 33(A) of the Planning & Compulsory Purchase Act 2004 as amended by Section 110 of the Localism Act 2011 and Paragraphs 17, 157 and 178 of the NPPF. In conclusion, the three Council s in South Worcestershire have not fully discharged their responsibilities under the Duty to Co-operate. An overemphasis on South Worcestershire as its own self-contained entity has ignored other equally important strategic relationships with neighbouring authorities. There remain many unresolved issues on overall housing numbers, unmet housing needs and cross boundary migration patterns between South Worcestershire and its neighbouring authorities as discussed in the preceding paragraphs. Although it may be argued these are matters of soundness compliance with the Duty to Co-operate by working together in a collaborative manner on an on-going basis from initial thinking to implementation would have identified if not resolved these issues between the neighbouring authorities. Whilst it is acknowledged that the Duty to Cooperate in itself does not infer a requirement to agree it is hoped agreement may result from working together. Therefore the Duty to Co-operate has not been satisfied in the preparation of the SWDP and the Plan does not adequately take into account housing requirements that cannot be wholly met in neighbouring areas in particular Birmingham and North Gloucestershire. Susan E Green MRTPI Planning Manager Local Plans Word count (excluding text in bold) : 2,030 Page 5

Matter 2 Duty to Co-operate

EXAMINATION OF THE SOUTH WORCESTERSHIRE DEVELOPMENT PLAN Matter 2 Duty to Co-operate Main issues: Whether or not the legal requirements imposed by S33A of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004