Central Bedfordshire

Development

Strategy

DLP BRIEFING NOTE 195

Prepared by DLP Planning Ltd

February 2015

DLP Planning Ltd

Bedford

Bristol Cardiff Leeds London Milton Keynes Nottingham

Rugby Sheffield

Disclaimer

DLP Consulting Group Ltd, and its constituent companies disclaims any responsibility to the client and others in respect of matters outside the scope of this Report. This Report has been prepared with reasonable skill, care and diligence, is the property of DLP Consulting Group, and is confidential to the client, DLP Consulting Group Ltd accepts no responsibility of whatsoever nature to third parties, to whom this report has been provided.

Central Bedfordshire Development Strategy

The Inspector appointed to examine the Central Bedfordshire Development Strategy, Brian Cook, has this week written to the Head of Development Planning and Housing Strategy at Central Bedfordshire Council to confirm that he has concluded that the Council has not complied with the Duty to Co-operate (The Duty). This is not, he states, a decision that he has come to lightly, as he fully recognises the effect this will have on the progress of the Plan. This follows the initial Hearing Session of the Examination in Public on the Duty that formally opened on the 2nd February 2015 and ran for just two days before being adjourned.

The Inspector had also already written to the Council in advance of the Hearing Sessions expressing his concerns in respect of its compliance with Section 33A of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004, which sets out the Duty’s requirements, and as such structured the Hearings to deal with the duty to co-operate and housing at a ‘first’ session. The Council supported the Inspector’s decision to conduct the Hearing in two stages. The stage 1, which opened on 3 February and dealt with Legal Compliance and the Duty (Matter 1) and Housing, Employment and Retailing Scale (Matter 2); Matter 2 did not however take place.

In his letter the Inspector set out his conclusions and stated in his letter that he did not consider there was sufficient evidence that the various authorities (in the HMA area) had taken the necessary steps through the process to secure the delivery of the homes and jobs needed. He was particularly concerned about the position of Luton Borough Council, which is constrained in its ability to meet its own needs. The Inspector commented that he does not underestimate the challenge that achieving the necessary co-operation presents in this particular area but that all reasonable steps must be shown to have been taken to secure that co-operation before it would be reasonable to conclude that the Duty had been complied with. The Inspector considered that the co-operation between Central Bedfordshire Council and Luton Borough Council has fallen short of the required level.

Roland Bolton the Head of the Strategic Planning & Research Unit (SPRU) within DLP Planning Ltd appeared at the Hearing Sessions to articulate the concerns expressed in the written representations made by the Practice on behalf of its clients, and contributed significantly to the discussions around the questions raised by the Inspector in his appraisal of matters (paragraph 36 of letter) :-

a. What are the outcomes of the Duty process? b. How have they influenced the Plan? c. What has been the role of members in leading the process? d. What steps have been taken to secure effective policy delivery on cross boundary strategic matters?

Dealing first with the outcomes matter, the Inspector stated that this was the delivery of the full objectively assessed needs for market and affordable housing in the housing market area (Framework paragraph 47), including the unmet needs of neighbouring authorities where it is reasonable to do so, consistent with sustainable development (Framework paragraph 182).The Inspector concluded that how much and where, does not appear to be agreed by Luton and Central Bedfordshire Councils, and in that respect they seem no further forward than they were in 2011 when the Luton and South Bedfordshire Joint Core Strategy was withdrawn.

The Inspector also stated that the Memorandum of Understanding (MoU) is the mechanism by which this should be resolved, however, he concluded that the MoU fails to:

“…meet the guidelines for such a document [10.h]. In particular, it does not establish clearly the scale of the unmet need nor does it set out how and where this will be met. Moreover, it has not been signed by all of the authorities, most notably Luton Borough Council. To that extent it cannot be relied upon by the Council as a mechanism for demonstrating that through the Duty process the need of the Luton Housing Market Area will be delivered, even in the future.”

In respect of the question on influence on the Plan, he concluded ‘hardly at all’, simply from the timing of events. Furthermore, he found no evidence that Central Bedfordshire Council has considered the implications of meeting the unmet need of Luton in full.

Ultimately, the Inspector stated that this is a soundness point given the drafting of Framework paragraph 182. However, he concluded that this also goes to the Duty, since this has been an issue in contention between the two authorities since October 2010 at the latest, and is thus indicative of a failure of the Duty process to influence the Plan, since no accommodation on this important cross-boundary issue has been reached.

In respect of the question on Member’s roles, the Inspector reminded the Council that the Duty came into effect in November 2011 and at the advisory visit in 2013 (by a PINS Inspector and an officer of DCLG) it was emphasised the importance of the two authorities working together. The Inspector noted the history of the difficult working relationships between the two authorities, evidenced by robust exchanges of correspondence between the authorities and Luton Borough Councils legal challenges to planning permissions granted by the Council on land allocated in the Plan, and stated that it seems somewhat surprising that in all these circumstances the first meeting outlining the members’ role in the Duty process did not take place until very late in the process.

In respect of the issue on steps to be taken, another that Roland Bolton contributed to, the Inspector concluded that Central Bedfordshire Council has simply taken forward the strategy withdrawn Joint Core Strategy and the adopted plan for the northern part of the Borough without giving proper consideration to the current ‘need’ position.

At paragraph 75 of his letter the Inspector noted that translating the objectively assessed housing need for the HMA into a housing requirement figure for the Plan area is a matter for discussion under the Duty. The Inspector noted that with the publication of the 2012-based household projections imminent, and several local plans in the wider area at points in their preparation where this data will be vital, there would appear to be an opportunity for meaningful activity through the Duty process. In his view therefore, in the particular circumstances of this area and at this time, the way that the authorities engage through the Duty is more important than the manner in which the boundaries of any particular HMA are drawn. This was also approach advocated by Roland Bolton at the Hearing Session.

The Inspector invited the Council to consider withdrawing the Strategy rather than continuing in the light of his conclusions

In what is a surprisingly quick response to the Inspector’s letter, Central Bedfordshire has notified the media that it is planning legal action against the ruling that the draft Plan does not comply with the Duty and should be withdrawn. Their initial stance is they will not withdraw the Plan. This we understand is now to be discussed at a meeting of Full Council on Thursday 26th February. DLP will keep you updated of the position given this highly unusual conclusion.

DLP Planning Ltd have considerable knowledge of planning matters, which allows us to deliver the best results for our clients. If you require any further advice regarding the above, please do not hesitate to contact one of the offices listed below. Senior staff within the practice would be very happy to assist you with regards to your enquiry.

If you require more information or would like to discuss the issues mentioned in further detail please contact:

Bedford Leeds 4 Abbey Court Princes Exchange Fraser Road Princes Square Priory Business Park Leeds Bedford LS1 4HY MK44 3WH T 0113 280 5808 T 01234 832 740 F 01234 831 435 London 1st Floor Bristol 3 More London Riverside Unit 1 Blenheim Court London Beaufort Office Park SE1 2RE Woodlands T 020 3283 4142 Bradley Stoke

Bristol BS32 4NE Milton Keynes T 01454 410 380 Midsummer Court F 01454 410 389 314 Midsummer Boulevard Milton Keynes Cardiff MK9 2UB Sophia House T 01908 440015 28 Cathedral Road F 01908 357750 Cardiff CF11 9LJ Sheffield T 029 2064 6810 Ground Floor

V1 Velocity Building East Midlands Tenter Street The Old Vicarage Sheffield Market Street S1 4BY Castle Donington T 0114 228 9190

DE74 2JB F 0114 272 1947

T 01332 856971 F 01332 856973

BEDFORD 4 Abbey Court Fraser Road Priory Business Park Bedford MK44 3WH

t 01234 832 740 f 01234 831 435 [email protected]

BRISTOL Unit 1 Blenheim Court Beaufort Office Park Woodlands Bradley Stoke Bristol BS32 4NE

t 01454 410 380 f 01454 410 389 [email protected]

. CARDIFF 28 Cathedral Road Cardiff CF11 9LJ

t 029 2064 6810 [email protected]

EAST MIDLANDS The Old Vicarage Market Street Castle Donington DE74 2JB

t: 01332 856971 f: 01332 856973 [email protected]

LEEDS Princes Exchange Princes Square Leeds LS1 4HY

f 0113 280 5808 [email protected]

LONDON 1st Floor 3 More London Riverside London SE1 2RE

f 020 3283 4140 [email protected]

MILTON KEYNES Midsummer Court 314 Midsummer Boulevard Milton Keynes MK9 2UB

t 01908 440015 f 01908 357750 [email protected]

SHEFFIELD Ground Floor V1 Velocity Building Tenter Street Sheffield S1 4BY

t 0114 228 9190 f 0114 272 1947 [email protected]