Spatial Planning and Policy Committee
Notes of meeting held at the Council House, Birmingham
Date: 30 November 2012
Time: 11.00am
Present
NAME
Dave Simpson
Andy Johnson
Diane Cooper
Ian Weeke
Don Gobbett
Catriona Riddell
David Feeney
Adam Dodgshon
Sue Janota
Keith Holland
Claire Bond
Nicky Linihan
Alan Gomm
Dave Carter
AUTHORITY
Solihull MBC - Chair
South Staffordshire Council –
Sec/Vice C
Harlow DC
LB Ealing
Dorset CC
CRA
Leeds City Council
PAS
Surrey CC
PINs
Huntingdonshire DC
NLA
Kings Lynn & West Norfolk DC)
Birmingham City Council
Apologies for absence:
John Silvester (John Silvester Assoc), Andrew Wright (POSe), Richard Schofield
(Bassetlaw DC), Steve Barton (LB Ealing), Alex Yendole (Stafford BC)
1. Notes of the meeting of 14 September 2012 and matters arising
Notes agreed and no matters arising.
2. Duty to Co-operate (DtC) – Keith Holland (PINs) – Overview and Q&A
The Chair welcomed Keith Holland to the meeting and commented that DtC had
been the theme for the July meeting and had attracted significant amount of
attention from colleagues.
Keith advised the meeting that PINs has provided input to the Taylor Review
regarding Planning Guidance. Likely that DtC will be the No.1 item where the
Review will recommend to DCLG that Guidance is very urgent. No.2 will be
around viability testing of development.
Keith reminded colleagues of the legal DtC that must be demonstrated during the
preparation stages of the Submitted Plan. PINs are not able to help at this stage
because the plan preparation stage has ended. Failure at this stage would mean
that the Plan would not proceed to an Examination Hearing. The second aspect of
the DtC is the requirement for ‘effective’ demonstration of co-operation as
required by NPPF. This aspect of soundness would be tested by the Inspector
during the Examination process. Whilst it is not a ‘Duty to agree’ if the Plan is
dependent on the co-operation of a neighbouring authority then the Plan is likely
to be found unsound without evidence of commitment from the neighbour.
Keith commented on the challenges that can exist in obtaining co-operation at
Member level. Moreover if plan preparation is not progressing at the same rate
then an LPA might need to either a) seek an alternative strategy that doesn’t
require co-operation across boundaries or b) seek another partner. There does
not appear to be any sanctions that can apply to a neighbouring authority who is
reluctant to accept meeting the development needs of its neighbours. Unless it
also affects the development of their own Local Plan and the integrity of its
evidence base. Simply demonstrating that an lpa has tried to seek the cooperation of a neighbour is unlikely to be sufficient to achieve soundness eg
Stevenage/North Herts.
Q&A
The Chair commented that the Inspector (Steven Pratt) had raised the Duty at
the Pre-Hearing meeting recently regarding the emerging Solihull Local Plan.
Everyone is looking for the right way forwards. There is a school of thought that it
can be dealt with through the LEPs.
Catriona commented that in her experience the issues are:

Lack of understanding of officers at LPAs

Proportionality – it’s the big strategic issues that are important and not
everything eg North London Waste Plan

Timescales – neighbours can be at different points in plan preparation
process so timescales need to be managed

City Regions – TCPA meeting soon to discuss. London City Governance has
no mechanism for LPAs. How do we manage the growth (Nick Boles
agenda). LEPs have not demonstrated a desire to get involved.

Leadership – downgrading of professionals

County & District relationships
Sue commented that in the review of the London Plan housing figures were set
for Districts without talking with neighbouring Shire Counties. Surrey now
lobbying S.East/London Councils.
Keith commented that, in his opinion, Green Belt remains a strong defence even
in the absence of a 5 year housing land supply. Keith recalls that Gregg Clark was
strong on the Duty to Co-operate.
Andy commented that in some cases the trend is to go the other way. Evidence
of less co-operation in the case of Gypsy & Traveller provision. South Staffs was
part of an A5 Corridor Study that involved a number of lpas in preparing its 2007
GTAA. Now evidence of lpas going it alone in the updated GTAA. The Chair
commented that this was the approach in Solihull.
Alan commented that in some cases it is not always obvious who should become
involved with whom in demonstrating the Duty. For example in the case of
housing demand the land supply situation in Norfolk is not so relevant for Kings
Lynn who would look at Cambridgeshire group/Fens. However, there will be
common issues such as how we handle development in the villages of East
Cambs, Kings Lynn & Norfolk.
David Feeney commented on Leeds City Region issues. HA and infrastructure
delivery. Keith commented that critical to document consideration of the issues
even if it is just one page of evidence.
Nicky commented that a definition of what is strategic would be helpful to identify
where it could be necessary to search for co-operation.
Adam drew attention to PAS’s 10 golden rules of strategic planning. PAS will also
provide support for the Duty.
Dave Carter reminded the meeting of the mapping work that Birmingham CC had
carried out which had been presented at a previous POS meeting. The map
illustrates relative strength of the relationship between Birmingham CC and its
near neighbours.
Don regrets the disappearance of strategic planning expertise. Don considers that
we currently have those who get it and those who get it but don’t want to know.
There is a dis-connect between local decision-making and the Duty to co-operate.
In Dorset there has been a Memorandum of Understanding (MoU) –
County/Districts. LEP experience is that concerns focus on their own business
interests rather than broader strategic planning issues. Some evidence of
strategic planning in the New Deal.
Keith highlighted consequences of NPPF and March 2013 for plan making.
Emphasis on positively prepared plans and presumption in favour of sustainable
development in decision taking.
Alan commented that concise NPPF provides a clear focus and direction and has
enabled Government to get across its key messages. David Feeney commented
on how the 5 year land supply issues seem to be coming out on top every time
and contrast this with sustainable development. Suggest that Taylor Review looks
at SHLAA & SHMA processes and calculation of 5 year supply. Don advised that
POS doing some work on Taylor Review – Andrew Wright & David Hackforth.
Keith advised that PINs and DCLG working closely on Taylor Review and Keith has
a meeting soon with Planning Minister Nick Boles.
There was a discussion on the difficulties of identifying who to co-operate with.
Diane described an attempt by colleagues to map outcomes on a spreadsheet in
an attempt to identify who Harlow should be approaching re Duty - suggested
one document that is Member friendly would help lpas to understand what is
expected of them. Catriona cited Sussex as an example - start with a topic and
set up an advisory board to talk about strategic planning and investment issues.
Catriona stressed that the on-going part of the Duty is important. Ian referred to
North London Waste Plan and the difficulty of identifying who to co-operate with.
Not all waste streams have been identified and it is difficult to capture all
significant movements of waste.
Keith commented on the importance of co-operation on strategic issues.
‘Strategic’ can be interpreted differently in different places – some locations circa
500 dwellings will be strategic and yet in other places only 50 dwellings could be
strategic. Clearly in the case of Stevenage and North Herts – where 60% of
Stevenage growth being proposed in neighbouring District – there was an obvious
strategic issue that required co-operation in order for the Plan to proceed. Diane
commented that Harlow/East Herts & Epping have similar issues regards direction
of future housing growth.
The discussion concluded with Cartiona commenting that strategic planning,
under the Duty, is essentially about relationship management and the chair
commented that this is clearly an on-going issue.
The Chair invited Nicky Linihan to update the group on the work of Sir John
Harman – June 2012 – housing delivery steering group. Looked at issues of
viability. Adam advised that PAS provides ‘critical friend’ support for plan-wide
viability. Harman approach more helpful with viability of local plans, policies and
S106/CIL. In contrast RICS approach is better suited to specific sites. Adam also
advised of emerging PAS toolkit regarding population projections. Also Cambs
work. Trying to make it easier for people to understand about population demand
for housing – raise awareness. Nicky is seeking volunteers to look at preparing a
companion guide. www.howmanyhomes.org Don and Alan expressed an interest.
3. LEPs – Meeting with DCLG/Update
There has been a meeting between LEP Network & DCLG. It was suggested that
POS could contribute regards planning role for LEPs going forwards. Nick Tennant
is DCLG contact. At the meeting he expressed the view that LEPs are about
encouragement of enterprise and spoke less about strategic planning role.
Generally LEPs are reluctant to step into political world. POS role potentially in
educating LEPs in strategic planning. Highlight challenges in 2 tier areas
(County/District). POS President keen on a round table discussion with LEP
Network. The chair commented that Greater Birmingham & Solihull LEP is
engaging with the commercial world. Don commented that Development
Management issue dominate Dorset LEP. However, round 2 of City Deal highlights
need for strategic planning framework. Catriona commented that
Cambs/Peterborough joint strategic planning unit are working on LEP
engagement. Heseltine report recommendations include LEP geography (one LEP
per lpa). New transport bodies could help focus on strategic planning issues over
wider areas.
4. PAS work programme update
Adam drew attention to the website and PAS advice notes. GTAA was flagged as
an area where some guidance would be helpful.
5. POS Matters Update
Catriona drew attention to POS comments on Growth & Infrastructure Bill. Also
early January encouragement to lpas to bring along young planners to POS DM
Committee meeting in London.
6. AOB
Adam Dodgshon (PAS) advised that HA are compiling a list of protocols regarding
what they will do/lpas can expect regards their comments on planning
applications and input into plan-making. London 6 December Seminar on ‘Pinch
Point programme. Diane commented that it could be a problem if infrastructure
requirements are not on the ‘pinch-point’ list. Nicky commented that DCLG
website now disappeared and on 15 November transferred to Government Portal.
Next meeting: tbc