Planning City Regions under the Duty to Co-operate

Transcription

1 Planning City Regions under the Duty to Co-operate Gavin Hall Director 15 June 2012 here savills.co.uk

2 Once upon a time

3 Once upon a time There was the Hampshire County Structure Plan

4 Once upon a time then along came the big bad Regional Spatial Strategies The furthest evolution of Wider-than-local strategy making so far, given available democratic arrangements

5 With a little bit longer We could have had: two parts of the development plan developed together through dialogue sub regional strategies addressing functional areas needing spatial strategies and decisions

6 With a little bit longer We could have had: two parts of the development plan developed together through dialogue sub regional strategies addressing functional areas needing spatial strategies and decisions

7 And then... We threw that approach to strategic planning away when we got rid of imposed housing figures leaving housing provision to be decided by local authorities who, in some cases, will wish to avoid making provision

8 So what s next... The Duty to Co-operate!

9 So what s next... The Duty to Co-operate! What does it mean?

10 So what s next... The Duty to Co-operate! How to do it?

11 So what s next... The Duty to Co-operate! Won t it be wonderful!

12 Planning Reform The Government s (current!) message is that strategic planning is needed, and in the context of localism, strategic planning is to be carried out by local planning authorities (and others) working together

13 Duty to Co-operate There will be those that will work together

14 Duty to Co-operate There will be those that will work together...but there will be others that won t

15 Levels of Co-operative Working Consult each other Share evidence Collective resourcing / commissioning of evidence Establish common objectives for elements of strategy and policy Joint working on decisions to formulate core strategies Mutual agreement to critical content before proceeding with individual core strategies One joint core strategy, separately adopted One joint core strategy, adopted by one formal joint committee

16 How to Co-operate Different issues have different geographies Identify possible strategic issues Relationship between settlements and strategic infrastructure requirements will indicate collaboration required Map relationships and approach the relevant authorities Work together on the issues, evidence requirements, and possible responses and outcomes

17 Example of a potential co-operation issue Strategic employment opportunity Creates an increased housing demand in the urban area for the extra workforce Urban authority looks to the rural authority to help meet the housing requirement Change of view on strategic employment?

18 Potential Benefits of Co-operation Sharing of ideas and pooling of resources Development requirements are more likely to be met Greater access to resources of other stakeholders Opportunity to swap development provision Giving confidence to funders and investors

19 But there are authorities for which co-operating on strategic issues is the road to all evil

20

21 Working Across Boundaries The South Hampshire Experience

22 Working Across Boundaries The South Hampshire Experience

23 The South Hampshire Experience PUSH Working collaboratively towards growing our local economy 2003 PUSH formed» Core group of 2 Cities, County and 4 Districts 2004 PUSH expanded to the 11 Councils 2011 Solent LEP formed, PUSH remodelled 5 Delivery Boards including economic development, housing and planning, infrastructure, funding

24 The South Hampshire Experience PUSH Track Record Adopted South Hants Strategy in the SE Plan Multi Area Agreement economic delivery package Recognised Diamond for Investment and Growth Secured New Growth Point funding Transport for South Hampshire joint transport strategy Core PUSH and TfSH teams and governance structure Shared evidence base: economy, transport, infrastructure, environment

25 The South Hampshire Experience PUSH Track Record Joint capital programme Investment in strategic development areas SE Hants Bus Rapid Transit and strategic transport model Daedalus Enterprise Zone Regional Growth Fund Success A Shared Spatial Strategy

26

27 Solent LEP

28 Solent LEP Key programmes: Enterprise Zone Daedalus Regional Growth Fund Seven successful SE bids, three of which were supported by the Solent LEP

29 Why partner Economic imperative to do so Recognising the geography of business Effective marketing - create a brand Establish common vision and strategy Single point of contact Boost bidding and lobbying power Resolve disputes But there needs to be a willingness to do this

30 Does it have teeth? What obligation is placed on planning authorities by the new provisions? Can it be made to happen?

31 Duty to Co-operate Legal requirement from the Localism Act November 2011 and Soundness Test Planning Framework March 2012

32 The Planning Framework on the Duty to Co-operate LPAs should work collaboratively with other bodies to ensure that strategic priorities across local boundaries are properly co-ordinated and clearly reflected in individual Local Plans The Government expects joint working on areas of common interest to be diligently undertaken for the mutual benefit of neighbouring authorities LPAs will be 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

33 Examination of the Local Plan

34 Positively Prepared the plan should be prepared based on a strategy which seeks to meet objectively assessed development and infrastructure requirements, including unmet requirements from neighbouring authorities where it is reasonable to do so and consistent with achieving sustainable development Infrastructure Links and Shared Provision Development Requirements

35 Soundness The soundness test now requires Inspectors to consider cross boundary development requirements according to the evidence The game seems to have changed: But differences between authorities and different plan preparation programmes will present practical differences

36 Exporting Authorities For plan to be found sound, do we need: Co-operation by the receiving authority in the form of discussion, but nothing different in its plan as a result? Agreement by the receiving authority to make provision in its plan, but yet to be done Agreement by the receiving authority that provision needs to be made in its plan, but no provision made for what seem to be compelling reasons A plan prepared by the receiving authority which makes provision for cross boundary development (and already been found sound?)

37 Receiving Authorities For plan to be found sound, do we need: Demonstrably no cross-boundary issues No request from the exporting authority to address an unmet requirement (regardless of the evidence of that unmet requirement) An evident and agreed unmet requirement, but compelling reasons why this cannot be met in the receiving authority s plan Agreement to make provision for the unmet requirement by the receiving authority A plan prepared by the receiving authority which makes provision (and which has been found sound?)

38

39 And they all lived happily ever after...