Mid Sussex District Council Duty to Cooperate Statement August 2016 Mid Sussex District Council: Duty to Cooperate Statement Contents 1.0 Introduction ................................................................................................................ 1 2.0 Duty to Cooperate Framework .................................................................................... 1 3.0 Memorandums of Understanding with neighbouring and nearby local authorities ....... 2 4.0 Statements of Common Ground with public bodies .................................................... 4 5.0 Production of joint evidence with neighbouring authorities .......................................... 5 6.0 Capacity of Mid Sussex District to Accommodate Development ................................. 7 7.0 Sustainability Assessment of Cross-Boundary Options .............................................. 7 8.0 Coastal West Sussex and Great Brighton Strategic Planning Board ......................... 12 9.0 Representations on the Proposed Modifications to the Crawley Borough Local Plan 13 10.0 Joint working with the Greater London Authority on planning for London and the ‘Wider South East’ .............................................................................................................. 13 11.0 Consultation on Focused Amendments to the Pre-Submission Draft District Plan, November 2015 .................................................................................................................. 14 12.0 Cooperation with the Marine Management Organisation .......................................... 15 i Mid Sussex District Council: Duty to Cooperate Statement 1.0 Introduction 1.1 The document provides an update to the Duty Cooperate Statement (July 2013) that was submitted to the Planning Inspectorate with the previous Mid Sussex District Plan (May 2013). It explains the work that has been undertaken by Mid Sussex District Council over the period 2014 - 2016 in accordance with the duty to cooperate alongside the preparation of the revised version of the District plan – the Mid Sussex District Plan 2014 – 2031. 2.0 Duty to Cooperate Framework 2.1 The Council resolved to take a structured approach to meeting the duty to cooperate. A Duty to Cooperate Framework was therefore prepared with the objective of establishing a robust and transparent process to guide cooperation with the relevant local authorities and public bodies. It was also intended to enable cooperation to be monitored, the outcomes achieved recorded and the frequency of engagement with the relevant authorities/public bodies set out. In particular, the Duty to Cooperate Framework would enable the Council to demonstrate that engagement had been constructive, active, ongoing, collaborative, diligent and of mutual benefit, as required by legislation and national policy. 2.2 A draft Duty to Cooperate Framework was endorsed by the Council’s Scrutiny Committee for Planning and Economic Development on 4th June 2014 on the basis that it would be kept under review. A review and update of the Framework was endorsed by the same Scrutiny Committee on 27th October 2015. The document is set out at Appendix 1. 2.3 The draft Framework set out what were understood to be the relevant strategic planning issues requiring cooperation with neighbouring and nearby local authorities and public bodies (in practice, these issues were to evolve during the discussions with the authorities/bodies). It also indicated that a programme of officer and Member meetings with all of the relevant local authorities would be arranged with the aim of achieving signed Memorandums of Understanding (MoU) with each of them. This was in accordance with the advice in the Planning Practice Guidance (Paragraph: 016 Reference ID: 9-016-20140306) that: “Another way to demonstrate effective cooperation, particularly if Local Plans are not being brought forward at the same time, is the use of formal agreements between local planning authorities, signed by elected members, demonstrating their long term commitment to a jointly agreed strategy on cross boundary matters. Such agreements should be as specific as possible, for example about the quantity, location and timing of unmet housing need that one authority is prepared to accept from another authority to help it deliver its planning strategy.” 1 Mid Sussex District Council: Duty to Cooperate Statement 3.0 Memorandums of Understanding with neighbouring and nearby local authorities 3.1 Commencing in May 2014, ongoing duty to cooperate meetings with the following local authorities were held, as set out in the Duty to Cooperate Framework: Adur & Worthing Councils Arun District Council Brighton & Hove City Council Chichester District Council Crawley Borough Council East Sussex County Council Horsham District Council Lewes District Council South Downs National Park Authority Tandridge District Council Wealden District Council West Sussex District Council 3.2 During these meetings, the respective timetables for the preparation of local plan documents were shared and the relevant cross-boundary strategic planning issues and outcomes were discussed and agreed. Further meetings were arranged to discuss emerging evidence base documents such as the “Capacity of Mid Sussex District to Accommodate Development” study (see section 6), “Sustainability Assessment of Cross Boundary Options” (see section 7) and “Housing Provision Paper” (see section 8). This continued engagement led to the drafting of Memorandums of Understanding, which were generally signed either by the relevant Cabinet Member for planning or the Leader of the Council. The most recent versions of these signed MoUs are included in Appendix 2. 3.3 In the case of Crawley and Horsham Councils, the pre-existing Northern West Sussex Authorities Position Statement was revised in lieu of an MoU. In the case of Tandridge District Council, which has not adopted a cabinet model of governance and hence does not have a planning portfolio holder, the MoU was signed at chief officer level. 3.4 As the relevant strategic issues developed (such as a revised assessment of Objectively Assessed Housing Need, a new key piece of evidence was published or local plan timetables changed), this triggered the need for an updated MoU. It has also become apparent that there were only indirect links on certain strategic planning matters with some authorities such as Arun and Chichester, where issues crossed housing market area boundaries rather than the respective district boundaries. 3.5 Following the release of new household projections by DCLG in July the Council held meetings with CBC and BHCC to advise them of the impact of this data on 27th July 2 Mid Sussex District Council: Duty to Cooperate Statement and 29th July respectively. These meetings were followed up in writing on the 4th August and acknowledged by CBC on 11th August and 27th July and BHCC on 12 August (see appendix 7 and 8). The impact of the change in household projections is that the OAN after applying vacancy rates and market signals increases from 656 to 754 dwellings pa. The provision number remains at 800 dwellings pa, thereby reducing the amount available to meet the housing needs of neighbouring authorities. 3.6 At least one MoU or Position Statement has been signed with all of the local authorities listed above with the exception of East Sussex County Council. Following a series of technical meetings between the two authorities and West Sussex County Council Highways concerning an assumed increase in traffic movements from people living and working in Burgess Hill through the village of Ditching in East Sussex, Mid Sussex District Council, prepared an MoU and, with the assistance of West Sussex County Council Highways, a Statement of Common Ground signature by East Sussex County Council. Despite working with East Sussex County Council in the lead up to the drafting of the MoU and the Statement of Common Ground, no response has been received to date regarding these, despite repeated attempts to make contact with and arrange further meetings with responsible officers. It is also noted that East Sussex County Council did not make any representations in response to the Pre-Submission Draft District Plan. It is assumed the County Council has no major concerns with either the proposals in the District Plan or with any cross- boundary strategic planning issues. However, we shall continue to work constructively with ESCC to achieve an MoU and a Statement of Common Ground, on completion of the amended Mid Sussex Transport Study, which reports on the likely transport impacts of the Focused Amendments to the Pre-Submission Draft District Plan (November 2015). Outcomes resulting from the Memorandums of Understanding 3.7 The following agreed actions comprise the main outcomes that have been secured through joint working with neighbouring and nearby local authorities: A paragraph has been inserted into the supporting text of the District Plan to draw attention to the need to consider the feasibility of minerals extraction where a proposed development is situated within a West Sussex Minerals Consultation Area. (West Sussex County Council) The revised Mid Sussex Infrastructure Delivery Plan (August 2016) following input from West Sussex County Council officers on the education, transport, and public and community service infrastructure needed to support the District Plan. (West Sussex County Council) It has been agreed that only indirect linkages exist with Arun and Chichester District