Castle Point, “to Challenge or Not to Challenge” that is the Question!

Whether Castle Point’s failure to cooperate with their Neighbouring Councils is worthy of challenging or not, requires open discussion sooner rather than later.

The issue does not form part of the Cabinet Agenda for this months meeting, however a Special Council meeting is scheduled for the 15th February, in which the response to the Inspector’s decision may be discussed.

Up until now the major decisions regarding the local plan have fallen upon the full council to decide.

The official statement from the Castle Point ceo reads;

 ‘The Council is naturally disappointed with the Inspector’s conclusions, particularly as evidence of the extensive dialogue between Castle Point and our neighbours had been  put  before the Inspector both prior to and during the hearing on the 12 December which he acknowledged had been active on-going and sustained.

The Council takes the view that protecting the green belt is more important than providing new housing and wanted this principle to be tested in public by an Inspector.

There are significant implications from the Inspector’s conclusions for the Council and neighbouring South Essex Authorities in that there needs to be a “formal mechanism in place to distribute” housing that cannot be met through their individual plans in order to meet the Duty to Co-operate.

The Council will now need to consider the letter in more detail before deciding the next course of action.’

The emphasis in the cpbc ceo’s statement is “that there needs to be a “formal mechanism in place to distribute” housing that cannot be met through their individual plans...”

However the Examining Inspector letter concludes;

” Bringing matters together engagement in the preparation of the New Local Plan can, in general terms, be said to have been active and on-going.”

” Engagement should also be constructive.  This goes beyond the preparation of a joint evidence base, important though that is, but also encompasses the production of effective strategic planning policies and a positive approach.  There would be no point in holding a continual dialogue if, at the end of the day, the policies produced ignored important cross-boundary dimensions.  Unfortunately at Castle Point this is what has happened. “

“In specific terms the housing policies have failed to address how unmet need will be dealt with across the housing market area.  This is exacerbated by the lack of consideration of this matter when reducing the housing target by 50%.  Whether these policies are justified is a matter of soundness.  However, there have been fundamental shortcomings in the steps taken, or not taken, to secure the necessary cooperation on the strategic cross-boundary matter of housing. “

Government Guidance explains what is expected of the Duty to Cooperate;

“It places a legal duty on local planning authorities, county councils in England and public bodies to engage constructively, actively and on an ongoing basis to maximise the effectiveness of Local and Marine Plan preparation in the context of strategic cross boundary matters.

The duty to cooperate is not a duty to agree. But local planning authorities should make every effort to secure the necessary cooperation on strategic cross boundary matters before they submit their Local Plans for examination.”

So whilst the old Regional Strategies were rejected, there now appears an expectation of Housing Market Area strategies to take their place!

Whether it is fair to consider the 4 neighbouring Boroughs as being of the same Housing Market area maybe a little unrealistic at this time, although there is a distinct move to engulf the northern (our) part of the Thames Gateway area into a greater London suburb.

Thankfully that day falls outside of the local plan period.

Records produced as evidence by Mr Rogers of CPBC indicated that the neighbouring councils met to discuss a joint local plan and this option was rejected.

The Inspector’s main issue is that CPBC decided to publish a Local Plan that, reduced the Housing Supply by 50%, without meeting with the other authorities to negotiate whether they could accept some of the Housing Need shortfall, prior to the Plan’s publication.

Of the other authorities it would appear difficult to expect Southend, Rochford or Basildon to assist. That leaves only Thurrock with any apparent ability to accept a level of housing capacity.

Thurrock is a growth area, is constrained by a little over 50% of its area being Green Belt land and is a Unitary authority, therefore is a local authoritiy that is responsible for the provision of all local government services within its district. Unitary authorities were created to typically allow large towns to have separate local authorities from the less urbanised parts of their counties. Funding is an issue for them, that growth eases.

However, given the apparent ill-will between Castle Point and Thurrock local authorities, over cpbc’s continued aspiration to create a 2nd exit route off of Canvey Island via Thurrock and desire to protect its Green Belt reflected in the housing supply figures, some negotiating positions may need to be established quickly to placate the Examining Inspector!

The alternative would be to follow the much criticised St.Albans local authority’s route, of challenging the Inspector’s decision on their Local Plan and the failure to Cooperate.

This route appears to involve taking legal proceedings against the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government, MP Sajid Javid.

It would be unthinkable that a legal challenge from Castle Point, should we be able to afford it, would influence in any way the Secretary of State’s consideration of the Jotmans Farm Appeal Inquiry, wouldn’t it?

It will be interesting to note how cpbc view their position.

The responsibility for laying out the procedures to follow in the Duty to Cooperate falls upon the local government officers. We heard mention that meetings between the neighbouring councils were attended by the Council leaders and the chief executives, therefore it would appear there is some collective responsibility. If it was agreed that cooperation was found to be impossible this should appear in some record or have been discussed between officers and members.

Perhaps it is an illustration of a breakdown in communication and trust.

The St Albans Review reported their local authority’s decision to challenge their Duty to Cooperate Failure thus;

St Albans District Council has challenged an inspector’s conclusion it has not met its duty to co-operate while drawing up its Strategic Local Plan (SLP).

The council started legal proceedings last Thursday (January 5) against Sajid Javid, the secretary for communities and local government to quash the decision.

Last year, the council submitted its draft SLP for approval to the department for communities and local government (DCLG).

The DCLG appointed David Hogger, a planning inspector, to examine it, so he held an initial hearing on October 26 and sent the council his conclusions on 28 November.

He concluded the council had not met its duty to co-operate with neighbouring planning authorities while drawing up the SLP.

After taking legal advice, the council has decided to take legal action against Mr Javid.

It has applied to the High Court for permission to seek a judicial review of his inspector’s decision and a judge will consider the application in the next few weeks.

Council leader Cllr Julian Daly said: “The council believes the inspector’s conclusion we did not meet the duty to co-operate is flawed.

“We are therefore seeking a judicial review of the decision and look forward to having our case heard.

“However, we remain committed to meeting with the councils which raised concerns so we can understand and address their positions.

“I will continue to work closely with the other parties’ spokespeople in the development of the council’s approach.”

The SLP sets out policies on development in St Albans until 2031, identifying land for new housing, infrastructure, commerce, industry and social amenities.

It was produced following two intensive public consultations.”


2 responses to “Castle Point, “to Challenge or Not to Challenge” that is the Question!

  1. Editor
    According to the following article CPBC Councillors are not alone.

    72% of councillors think planning system is undemocratic
    Councillors in England think that the planning system works in the interests of developers over councils and local communities, according to new survey.

    The survey of 1,200 ward councillors in England was carried out by think tank Local Government Information Unit (LGiU) and commissioned by the National Trust.

    According to the findings, 72 per cent of councillors think that the planning system is too weighted in favour of developers, at the expense of local communities.

    In addition, half of those asked suggested that sites that are not in line with the local plan are being approved for housing, while the same percentage think planning departments are not adequately resourced. 36 per cent said that it is adequately resourced.

    Jonathan Carr-West, chief executive at the LGiU, said: “The planning system is one of the fundamental pillars of local democracy, allowing communities to help shape the physical structure of the places they live. Councillors are the most important link between communities and that system. Our survey with the National Trust shows that many councillors feel that this democratic tool is at risk of being undermined.”

    Other key statistics from the survey include:

    63 per cent of respondents strongly agreed or agreed with the statement: “The current planning system is too top-down”
    58 per cent disagreed with the statement: “It is easy for residents in my ward to influence the planning process”
    58 per cent of councillors with green belt in their area think that their council will allocate green belt land for housing in the next five years
    18 per cent think design has improved since the National Planning Policy Framework was published
    12 per cent think the loosening of planning restrictions has had a positive effect.

    Ingrid Samuel, historic environment director at the National Trust, said it is worrying that councillors feel the NPPF hasn’t delivered the localism that was promised.
    “If ministers are serious about local plans being at the heart of the planning system, then they should invest in council planning teams and use the housing white paper to give them the tools to deliver good quality housing in the right places.”

    With the housing white paper due later this month, the LGiU and the National Trust said there are concerns that matter could be made worse if it sets out “rigid” housing numbers for local plans which don’t take account of local factors as the green belt and Areas of Outstanding Natural Beauty.

    The organisations hope the government will take a number of steps to improve the confidence councillors have in the planning system, including:

    More resources for local planning authorities to help get local plans in place
    A smart approach to meeting housing need that allows councils to recognise local constraints and focuses development in the most appropriate areas.

    Laura Edgar, The Planner 
    11 January 2017

  2. Editor Am i the only cllr who links the duty to co operate with the fact The plan we put before the inspector had reduced the number of homes suggested as needed by half? I believed the motion put before council showed a number of 4200 homes to be built by 2031 ,but the minutes of the meetings show that the site known as North West Thundersley had not been put into the plan.
    Had this happened then the numbers would not have been halved and the duty to co operate would not have been questioned by the Inspector!
    The plan and its protection of green field green belt sites would then have been tested by him ?
    As they say ,we are where we are and therefore the opportunity to add that site into the plan is available to us and members will presumable make their decision in Early February .

    Bill Sharp

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s