Home Builders Federation Respondent No. 335115 Matter 1 GREATER NOTTINGHAM (Broxtowe BC, Gedling BC and Nottingham City Council) ALIGNED CORE STRATEGIES EXAMINATION Inspector’s Matters, Issues and Questions in bold text. Matter 1: The Duty to Co-operate and other Legal Requirements The main issues are (i) whether the duty to co-operate has been met, and (ii) whether the legal requirements have been complied with. Duty to Co-operate Section 33A of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004, as amended by s110 of the Localism Act 2011, imposes the duty to co- operate in relation to the planning of sustainable development. Neighbouring local planning authorities, County Councils and bodies prescribed in the Town and Country Planning Regulations 2012, must engage constructively, actively and on an ongoing basis in the preparation of development plan documents. Section s20(7B) of the 2004 Act establishes that the duty to co-operate is incapable of modification at examination. Where the duty to co-operate has not been complied with, the Inspector has no choice but to recommend non adoption of a local plan. The National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) describes what is expected for plan-making in paragraphs 178- 181. 1. Have the Councils met the duty to co-operate in the preparation of the Aligned Core Strategies plan (ACS), having regard for the Statement of Compliance, CD/REG/04? In particular, has constructive, active and on- going engagement taken place with Ashfield and Newark and Sherwood District Councils? 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 Local Planning Authorities (LPA) to co-operate 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 (DPD) in relation to strategic matters including sustainable development that would have significant wider impacts. At examination of DPDs 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 National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF), whereby neighbouring authorities should work jointly together and co-operate 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 Page 1 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 consultation, therefore “ it is reasonable to assume that engagement as part of co-operation is more than a process of consultation” (Paragraphs 22-25 Appendix 1 North London Waste Plan Inspectors Report March 2013). The HBF commends the three LPAs of Nottingham City Council, Broxtowe and Gedling District Council’s for working together to produce Aligned Core Strategies (ACS). However the ACS authorities adjoin five other neighbouring authorities namely Erewash Borough Council, Rushcliffe Borough Council, Newark & Sherwood District Council, Ashfield District Council and Amber Valley District Council with whom the ACS authorities must also demonstrate on-going and collaborative working relationships with under the Duty to Co- operate. The ACS authorities are also located at the junction of more than one Housing Market Area (HMA) as defined by the former East Midlands Regional Plan (EMRP). The three ACS authorities together with Erewash Borough Council, Rushcliffe Borough Council and part (Hucknall) of Ashfield District Council form the Greater Nottingham HMA. Amber Valley is part of the Derby HMA whilst Ashfield District Council and Newark & Sherwood District Council are constituent parts of the outer Nottinghamshire HMA. Just as LPA administrative areas are not self-contained entities with border controls neither are HMAs. Since the Greater Nottingham, outer Nottingham and Derby HMAs are adjoined, there are close inter-relationships and cross boundary housing growth issues between the three HMAs. Any possible under-provision of housing in the Greater Nottingham area particularly if assessed against implied national trend-based population and household projections could have potential implications for housing provision in the other HMAs and vice versa. Derbyshire County Council and Ashfield Borough Council have raised such concerns. The “ How Many Homes?/What Homes Where?” toolkit identifies strong migratory in and out flow patterns between the three ACS authorities themselves and neighbouring authorities of Rushcliffe, Ashfield and Newark & Sherwood. This web based toolkit launched by Lord Taylor in the House of Lords has been developed as a resource to provide independent and publicly available data on the household and population projections for every LPA in England. The aim of the resource is to assist LPAs in understanding the drivers of housing need. The use of this toolkit in determining objectively assessed housing need has been endorsed by Inspectors at examinations into the West Northamptonshire’s Joint Core Strategy and the Gravesham Local Plan Core Page 2 Strategy. It is also recommended in the Local Government Association Planning Advisory Service document “ Ten Key Principles For Owning Your Housing Number – Finding Your Objectively Assessed Needs” document published in July 2013. The NPPF expects LPAs to take account of migration (Paragraph 159). As explained in the Cambridge Centre for Housing & Planning Research (CCHPR) document “ Choice of Assumptions in Forecasting Housing Requirements Methodological Notes ” published in March 2013 “t he NPPF makes it clear that account is to be taken of migration. This suggests that it is not open to an authority simply to make whatever assumptions it chooses on flows to and from the rest of the UK and assumptions that imply a departure from recent trends (on which the official projections are based) would need to be carefully justified. The Duty to Co-operate is relevant here as any decision not to plan for a continuation of the flows that have taken place in the past would have an impact on the areas from which people move to the planning authority in question. There could be impacts on the areas that receive people from the authority. Some local authorities may wish to argue that to accommodate the projected net flows would have adverse impacts that outweigh the benefits of providing additional homes – a justification for not planning to meet the objectively assessed needs of an area that is specifically referred to in the NPPF. However, we suggest that in such cases, unless clear evidence can be provided that those not being planned for will be adequately accommodated elsewhere, then the adverse impact of providing housing should be weighed against the adverse impact on those who may as a result have to live in overcrowded or shared accommodation or be prevented from forming a household at all. There may also be broader impacts on other authorities, increasing the housing pressures they face .” Paragraph 159 of the NPPF recognises that if migration projections were ignored the result is likely to be a significant under provision of housing which is contrary to the Government’s stated intention “ to significantly boost the supply of housing ” (NPPF Paragraph 47). An intention reinforced in the Ministerial Statement “ Housing and Growth ” by CLG Secretary Eric Pickles on 6th September 2012 and more recently by the Parliamentary Under Secretary of State for Planning Nick Boles MP in his speech “Housing the Next Generation ” on 10 th January 2013. Therefore it follows that any LPA departing from the Government’s projected migration flows would need to justify its reasons for doing so including an explanation of where the households affected are going to live as agreed with neighbouring authorities under the Duty to Co-operate. If a LPA cannot show where those migrants it does not plan to provide a home for will live, the likelihood is that at the end of the housing chain there will be people forced to share, who are living as concealed households and prevented from forming their own households. The Housing Background Paper June 2012 Paragraph 4.13 states that for the “ACS period (2011 to 2028) the projected household increase for the HMA in the CLG projections is 65,700. As with all of the official projections, these are based upon a continuation of the migration trends seen in the recent past ”. However the ACS Councils are planning on a net balanced / zero migration assumption with households not accommodated within the ACS going to an Page 3 unspecified somewhere else. Over the plan period 2011-2028 a housing requirement of 48,950 dwellings across the HMA is identified of which 30,550 are in the ACS area. These 30,550 dwellings are distributed between the three authorities as 6,150 dwellings in Broxtowe, 7,250 dwellings in Gedling and 17,150 dwellings in Nottingham. The remaining dwellings are split between Erewash (6,250 dwellings) and Rushcliffe (13,150 dwellings) as shown in Table 7 of the ACS Councils Housing Background Paper Addendum dated May 2013. Paragraph 3.2.6 of the ACS states that it “meets the needs of the existing population, whilst allowing for continued in-migration to the area, albeit at a lower level than that experienced in the past ”.