Tag Archives: Thurrock Council

Castle Point Leader drops Gov. Minister Green Belt Bombshell! Whilst Canvey is Carved Up and expected to put trust in behind closed doors meetings!

It would appear insensitive, lacking openness and transparency and disrespectful for Canvey Island Town Council, as representative of the largest Town in Castle Point, to have not been invited nor allowed representation, in even an observational capacity, at the “collaborative” local area Planning meetings being undertaken by cpbc,  Basildon, Brentwood, Rochford, Southend–on-Sea, Thurrock and Essex County Councils.

These meetings fall under the umbrella of work “to create a vision and sense of place for South Essex through the Association of South Essex Local Authorities”.

More fundamentally it is the South Essex Local Authorities attempt to fulfill their failed efforts to Cooperate within their Local Plan processes.

During last weeks cpbc Special Council meeting, we heard from the ceo that both the Local Plan work and the work of the Association of South Essex Local Authorities, or ASELA for short,  are Intrinsically linked.

Carving

Canvey Island on the Menu

BEWARE! 

If you find yourself at the Dinner Table, without having received an Invitation,

It is very likely that you will be forming part of the Menu!

With Canvey Island currently supplying the largest sites of both Housing and Business Development in Castle Point, it is requiring almost foolhardy trust, given the previous track records, for Canvey residents to simply accept their interests are being represented to the best of cpbc Leader and officers ability!

The Leader said during the Special Council meeting that up until ASELA commenced working, cpbc was considered as “small fish” amongst south Essex councils. Off the bottom of the list, and having to fight tooth and nail to keep, schemes such as, Fairglen Interchange in the frame.

In effect Islanders are having to put our trust in Cllr Riley’s word, in reporting back to his confidents at cpbc.

Remember that no updates of work achieved or fulfilled have been made public, nor updates on how any agreements will impact upon the intrinsically linked Local Plan, with its Housing Need and Distribution of Housing Growth causing concern to many.

With Cllr Riley’s calling for trust in council members and residents alike, it was most surprising then to hear him state during the council meeting, that he himself held no trust in the Government’s Secretary of State, Sajid Javid, of whom he claimed, he didn’t “believe the minister cares whether we build on our green belt or not”!

In fairness to Cllr Riley his concerns may have some “legs”, as despite the SoS dismissing the Jotmans Farm, Benfleet development Appeal, he did so only on the day of the commencement of the Period of Purdah ahead of the General Election 2017! *

Residents may remember that the Jotmans Appeal was conducted during September 2015, so the decision was with the SoS for likely over 18 months awaiting his decision. No doubt he would have had in mind the progress being made with the cpbc Local Plan before making his decision, however since then he has reacted by placing cpbc on his list of 15 most local authorities likely to face Government Intervention! More recently, Sajid Javid’s ministry has been renamed to that of “Housing, Communities and Local Government”!

In the meantime, we wonder what Wheeling and Dealing goes on at these ASELA gatherings, Canvey Island residents with no representatives present, if we were informed, would learn 3rd hand at best!

* LINK to Jotmans Appeal decision

 

Advertisements

CPBC Local Plan2016 Duty to Cooperate Failed. Plan Withdrawal Recommended!

Much as had been predicted by far greater planning minds than ourselves, it has been announced that the Examining Inspector of the Castle Point Local Plan2016 has Failed the LP at the first hurdle – the Duty to Cooperate.

This will be a great disappointment for some, whilst no doubt others will take pleasure in proclaiming “we told you so!”

Given the somewhat aggressive nature of the other neighbouring authorities, especially Thurrock, it is difficult to guess how the position can be brought together.

One can only assume this may cause quite some delay.

From the Inspector’s remarks and conclusions it may be assumed that the hasty conclusion of the cpbc Local Plan Task and Finish group work contributed to the demise of the process.

Whether certain senior councillors should have been aware of this pitfall is open to conjecture.

Officer and councillor work on progressing the Local Plan2016 appears uncoordinated.

This in turn has cost residents some great extra expense.

Furthermore the Jotmans Farm developer may press for the Appeal Inquiry decision and the Dutch Village developer see a loophole in the Green Belt policy in the light of this Duty to Cooperate Failure.

Cherry picked copy and pasted extracts of the Planning Inspector’s letter appear below. The full letter is available on the LP Portal.

Taken as a whole throughout the preparation period from 2011 to August 2016 it appears that cooperation was structured and frequent. Whilst there may have been some loss of focus on strategic planning matters between 2014 and the early part of 2016, activity did not come to a complete stop.  There is no chronological record of what took place when but the picture painted by all those involved is one of active and more or less on-going engagement.

However the information provided is weaker in showing how cooperation actually influenced the New Local Plan.

The New Local Plan is based on an objectively assessed need for housing of 400 dwellings per annum.  Paragraph 13.22 recognises that the target for new homes does not equate with this but it reflects the capacity of the Borough to accommodate growth.  A subsequent updated Strategic Housing Market Assessment (SHMA) in May 2016 gives a range for objectively assessed need of between 326-410 dwellings per annum.  Be that as it may the draft New Local Plan proceeded on the basis of providing 200 dwellings per annum but this was reduced to 100 dwellings after the failure of the Task and Finish Group to reach agreement on the release of Green Belt land for housing in November 2015.

As far as the Council is concerned no amount of further conversations would have altered the difficulties in meeting its objectively assessed needs within its boundaries.

…….

  1. The questions of whether the strategy for housing is the most appropriate one and therefore justified and whether it is consistent with national policy, including paragraph 14 of the NPPF, are soundness ones. However, paragraph 179 of the NPPF provides that:

Joint working should enable local planning authorities to work together to meet development requirements which cannot wholly be met within their own areas – for instance, because of a lack of physical capacity or because to do so would cause significant harm to the principles and policies of this Framework.

……..

This is precisely the situation in Castle Point. Indeed, the officer report of July 2014 which set out the full document representations on the draft New Local Plan (CP/05/008) includes the following as an action point:

………..

Given that the Council has not been able to identify a sufficient supply of housing to meet its objectively assessed needs, it is also necessary to engage with neighbouring authorities under the auspices of the Duty to Cooperate in order to determine how the objectively assessed need for housing, and other strategic matters, will be addressed within the housing market area.

  1. However, notwithstanding the lengthy and detailed engagement across south Essex there is no formal mechanism in place to distribute unmet housing need. In order to comply with the duty there is no requirement for this to be done by any particular means.  Indeed, the outcome of joint working in this respect could take a variety of forms and it is not for me to say what they should be.  Nevertheless, the position is that there is simply nothing in the New Local Plan to indicate how the unmet need for housing will be tackled.  This is because the authorities have not yet deliberated about the matter in any meaningful way.  Therefore the question of how the objectively assessed need will be addressed, as raised by officers in 2014, has not been adequately grappled with.
  2. The Council is now anxious to ensure that the delivery of its objectively assessed needs is addressed with neighbouring authorities and intends to play a full and active part through the various DtC mechanisms that are now operating. There is no reason to doubt this but a failure to demonstrate compliance cannot be corrected after submission (PPG ID 9-018-20140306).

There is no duty to agree (PPG ID 9-00320140306).  However, whilst it might be firmly in view now, there is no clear evidence that consideration of this admittedly difficult issue was attempted as part of the preparation of the New Local Plan.  Within that process it has been treated as an ‘afterthought’.

all the indications are that in this respect the Council decided to ‘plough its own furrow’.  Failing to address the wider impact of its ‘last minute’ decision to lower the housing target by a considerable amount is the very opposite of cooperation in plan preparation.

the Council fell well short of making every effort to secure the necessary cooperation on the strategic cross-boundary matter of housing before submitting the New Local Plan for examination.  The engagement undertaken as part of its preparation was fundamentally flawed.

Whilst the Borough may not hold all or any of the answers to the shortage of (travellers) pitches in Basildon it should attempt to play its part.  Ultimately it might be that providing more traveller sites in Castle Point is not the best planned solution but there is a duty on the Council to try.  In preparing the New Local Plan it simply has not done enough in this respect and there has been a DtC failing.

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%.

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.  In addition, the Council has not made every effort to consider how it might deal with the significant unmet need for traveller sites in south Essex arising, in particular, from Basildon.

Therefore my final conclusion is that the duty to cooperate has not been complied with.  Clearly this is not the outcome that the Council would have wanted and it is not a view I have reached lightly or without full consideration of the material put to me.

Nevertheless I must recommend non-adoption of the New Local Plan under Section 20(7A) of the 2004 Act. In this situation the PPG advises that the most appropriate course of action is likely to be for the local planning authority to withdraw the plan under Section 22 and engage in necessary discussions and actions with others.  That is the course of action I would favour.  The alternative is to receive my report but the content of this would be substantially the same as this letter.

Eyes of Developers, councillors and Planners have a Duty to focus on Castle Point!

Castle Point council are probably aware of the Inspector’s decision as to whether the Duty to Cooperate on strategic matters has been complied with. The decision should be made public next week.

The Duty to Cooperate “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.

Local planning authorities must demonstrate how they have complied with the duty at the independent examination of their Local Plans. If a local planning authority cannot demonstrate that it has complied with the duty then the Local Plan will not be able to proceed further in examination.

Local planning authorities will need to satisfy themselves about whether they have complied with the duty. As part of their consideration, local planning authorities will need to bear in mind that the cooperation should produce effective and deliverable policies on strategic cross boundary matters.”

Castle Point representatives pointed out that through the Thames Gateway and South Essex Partnerships cooperation was underway between neighbouring authorities. Whether the areas of cooperation, and the levels of strategic success were satisfactory  in important areas, will be decided by the Inspector, Mr David Smith.

Development Committee

 

Castle Point is the smallest of the neighbouring Boroughs and therefore may not be expected to take lead responsibility in setting strategic cooperation agendas. By implication, should their duty to Cooperate be considered to have Failed, it could also be considered an indictment of the efforts of Essex County Council, the Unitary Authority that is Thurrock Council and Rochford, Basildon and Southend Councils.

Rose Grogan a barrister with 39 Essex Chambers and a specialist in planning and environmental law wrote, in March 2016;

“One particular issue is the question of how to get local planning authorities to engage with one another on the issue of housing.

The government’s answer to this in 2011 was the creation of a ‘duty to cooperate’ in the Localism Act. At the time, it was hailed as a better alternative to regional planning, removing an unnecessary layer of policy while still setting the framework for strategic planning across local authority boundaries.

On its face, the duty appears to provide a much-needed framework for addressing strategic planning problems. Local authorities are required to cooperate with one another on cross-boundary issues, and face having their plans found to be unsound by inspectors, leading to considerable delays in bringing forward a plan if the duty is not complied with.

There are cases where inspectors have found that a local authority has not discharged the duty: Central Bedfordshire, Aylesbury Vale, and Hart District Council are three examples. These local authorities barely engaged with their neighbouring authorities, and so it was a clear case of failing to discharge the duty.”

In practice, however, the duty to cooperate has been the subject of criticism, in particular because it is a duty of form, not substance. In some ways, the criticism is justified. For a start, it does not require agreement. All that is required is evidence that attempts have been made to cooperate.

A further criticism is that the duty is all stick and no carrot, there is little positive incentive for neighbouring authorities to cooperate, and the enforcement of the duty currently depends on inspectors taking a robust approach. What is not clear from cases where local authorities have fallen foul of the duty is whether the threat of unsoundness had any impact on their decision to go about cooperating (or not) in the way that they did.

Surprisingly, there have been very few challenges to inspectors’ conclusions that the duty has been complied with. The courts have therefore not had the opportunity to bolster the duty, nor do they appear interested in doing so. Very early on, the courts confirmed that the test on review is whether an inspector’s decision was rational, and the court will not embark on a more searching analysis of whether the duty has in fact been discharged.

Without a requirement that local authorities reach agreement, the duty will continue to fall short of achieving the ultimate aim of getting local planning authorities to meet housing need.”

“Do your duty as you see it, and damn the consequences.” George Patton Jr

Christmas – a season of goodwill to all men… Even Thurrock Borough Council?

The aspirational 2nd access route between Canvey Island and the Manor Way Thurrock which would serve Canvey Island, not only a means of congestion relief, but more importantly, a much needed Emergency Relief Road has caused some consternation between our local authority and Thurrock Council.

Castle Point Council appear to have the issue lodged somewhere between being essential and of low-level option, see HERE.

Some confusion as to the research and evidencing of the “need” for this emergency route became apparent during the evidence given by Essex County Council’s Highways representative.

Castle Point council’s efforts to secure funds to provide the evidence of vehicle capacity levels and usage of Canvey way and the need for a 2nd access route was apparently successful back in April 2014, see HERE.

Hopefully some evidence of need will come forward prior to the CPBC Local Plan2016 Examination, so as to support the intended and / or approved Housing and Business developments.

Thurrock’s approach to cpbc’s Local Plan and Duty to Cooperate efforts can be considered to rest somewhere between being un-neighbourly to downright unsympathetic!

marleys_ghost_original-ill-john-leech

Scrooge visited by Marley’s ghost, who is forever cursed to wander the earth dragging a network of heavy chains. Original ill. John Leech

In answering the cpbc Local Plan’s Examining Inspector’s questions on the Duty to Cooperate, Thurrock responded;

“Thurrock Council officers have consistently set out Thurrock Council’s objections to a Canvey Island to Thurrock link road through the consultation workshops and representations on the Castle Point New Local Plan and in discussions on South Essex transport infrastructure as part of South Essex officer scoping of key strategic matters (January 2016). However there has been no specific or formal meetings with Castle Point Council regarding the issue of the North Thameside Link Road either with Thurrock Council members or officers under the Duty to Cooperate (a more detailed response is included at question 15).

Thurrock Council is unaware of any detailed or specific meetings concerning a proposition for a North Thameside Link Road. No representations were received by Thurrock Council from Castle Point on the Issues and Options consultation of the Thurrock Local Plan that took place in February to March 2016.

 There have been no formal meetings or requests for discussions between Thurrock officers and members with Castle Point Council officers or members regarding a North Thameside Link Road. Castle Point Council have not formally requested such discussions as part of the local plan process. Furthermore Thurrock Council has not formally discussed this road link with Essex County Council as the highway authority.

 The Chancellor in his Budget Statement of March 2016 included a reference to a Canvey Island third road, this was in the context of (paragraph 1.319) which stated, “…The government will look at the case for other projects, such as the Canvey Island Third road, to be taken forward”. The statement does not directly commit the Government to the funding of a third road to Canvey or that it is linked to the Manorway Road in Thurrock.

  It is Thurrock Council’s understanding that Essex County Council are working with Castle Point Council in seeking funding for a feasibility study to consider an outline business case for access options to Canvey island and not specifically the case for the North Thameside Link Road or any road linking Canvey Island to Thurrock.

With regard to the North Thameside Link Road Thurrock Council had made objections to this proposal with regard to:  Lack of evidence;  Deliverability and programming;  Impact on the highway network  Impact on the environment;  Failure to meet duty to cooperate on this matter. Castle Point Council have not discussed any of these matters with Thurrock Council.

Castle Point should carry out a comprehensive and robust assessment of housing supply and Green Belt to ensure that the housing target in the plan represents the most robust allocation and target.

Thurrock Council recommends that due to its opposition and the uncertainty regarding the feasibility and deliverability of a North Thameside Link Road that it should be removed from the Castle Point New Local Plan and Proposals Map.”

Hopefully the Inspector will view this as a little misunderstanding and suggest that Thurrock should extend a hand of friendship to Castle Point  in the light of the need to work together in the interests of developing out the Thames Gateway corridor.

After all, it is the Season of Goodwill to All Men!

The Canvey Green Belt Campaign would like to thank our reader for his continued support and wish One and All a very Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year!

 

The Gloves are Off, the Duty to Cooperate works both Ways! Castle Point – Thames Gateway!

“Seconds Out – Round 1” – Would have been an appropriate opening introduction to the Castle Point examination into their Local Plan Duty to Cooperate process.

The meeting was attended by 5 of the local authority neighbours, half a dozen councillors, a handful of residents and a group of developer’s representatives.

It was noticeable that the Thurrock council representative adopted a particularly aggressive position in pointing out apparent flaws in the cooperation work undertaken by cpbc.

Claims were made that meetings to discuss areas such as a joint local plan for the Thames Gateway area had been undertaken, and claims were disputed as being un-evidenced.

CPBC officer Rogers, it must be recognised, acquitted himself professionally and was able to support his statements and generally produce the necessary evidence to support his points-made as and when required.

Whether or not enough cooperation has been undertaken will be the inspector’s decision alone, the agreement and success of cooperation is not necessarily the deciding factor. Given the levels of inter-borough ill will individual cooperation between the 5 local authorities on non strategic issues is apparently unlikely!

The concensus between the Basildon, Thurrock, Southend, Rochford and Essex county authorities was that Castle Point should have re-consulted them once the decision was taken to lower the local plan Housing Delivery from 200 dwellings per Annum down to 100 dwellings.  They felt a delay on publication of the cpbc Local Plan2016 should have followed.

Perhaps in hindsight, delaying publication of the LP2016 for 1 month, until the negative responses were received in writing, may have proved evidentially worthwhile!

However, our neighbours have indicated that they are also unlikely to be able to fulfil their own Assessed Housing Needs, therefore it can be argued that delay would have been fruitless as no assistance with adoption of some castle point Housing Need would be forthcoming!

It is a fact the Castle Point is in a position of being required to push ahead with the local plan process, not simply to comply with the Government’s requirement to complete by 2017, but are expected to by the Secretary of State following promises made during the Glebelands development Appeal inquiry. During which it was considered premature to find in favour of the developer as good progress was being made in the local plan making process.

Whilst Castle Point have published a plan for examination, Thurrock, the most judgemental of neighbouring authorities, expect to submit theirs around 2020.

379px-madlhatterbytenniel-svg

Depiction by Sir John Tenniel.

Essex County Council representatives appeared most concerned about Highways issues. On the 2nd access to Canvey Island they revealed that they have not, as yet, been supplied with evidence of the Need for a new or improved access route! ECC claimed they have applied for funding to research the matter.

The barrister representing cpbc at this stage even went to the lengths to point out that the 2nd access route to Canvey, in particular the Northwick Road to Manor Way Thurrock, had been demoted to an aspiration, or “low-level” option, within the Local Plan2016 rather than a crucial piece of infrastructure!

This point should be explored as Canvey Islanders have long been fed the line that this is a priority  piece of infrastructure by castle point council!

No mention was made of the Roscommon Way final phase.

The reduction in the intended castle point Housing Supply was then used to suggest that not only the 2nd access route for Canvey Island but also the Woodmans Arms and A127 Fairglen interchange, meant that Government funding would not be released!

Interesting then that the news of this funding block was released in the press just days before this Local Plan meeting.

One can only assume that such major improvement as in the case of the Fairglen inter-change is being used as a lever by ECC as a means of over-riding the adopted Green Belt policy being sought for adoption by castle point council.

It was clear that Castle Point are no better or worse than other neighbouring authorities where cooperation is concerned, perhaps others should have adopted a less aggressive approach.

The inspector’s findings are intended for release by the 6th January 2017 at the latest. “Watch this space” – as Pammie would say!

Castle Point council’s Lack of Cooperation-Blame the Councillors! Updated

With “friends” like those local authorities neighbouring Castle Point, one may be tempted to question, who needs enemies?

Each authority responding to the Castle Point Local Plan2016 examining Inspector does so, critically.

Essex FRS

However in emphasising Castle Point’s failings these  neighbouring authorities underline their own shortcomings for; it takes 2 to Cooperate!

Planning Guidance changes emphasising that Green Belt land should be protected, have emerged since 2014. Given the response to the draft New Local Plan Consultation it would be unreasonable to expect the cpbc Local Plan 2016 should not reflect the consultation response findings, especially regarding Green Belt.

However the neighbouring councils collectively appear to be puzzled as to cpbc’s decision to adjust the Housing Supply Target, this while stating their own Green Belt acting as Constraints to their own Housing Delivery!

Throughout the responses there appears an underlying trend for either political conflict to be a cause of any failure to cooperate or officer / member issues to influence the responses.

Below are just snippets of our neighbouring councils responses.

Essex County Council response;

“The duty to cooperate (the duty) introduced by the Localism Act in November 2011, places a legal duty on all local authorities and public bodies (defined in regulations) to ‘engage constructively, actively and on an ongoing basis’”

“ECC’s role and responsibility is to use its best endeavours to assist and support local authorities in the two tier area to address strategic and cross-boundary matters and to work with adjoining authorities (including Southend and Thurrock) to engage and co-operate with other organisations for which those issues may have relevance i.e. Highways England”

ECC refer to; “The A127 Corridor for Growth – An Economic Plan 2014” as evidence of cooperation. This illustrates the importance of the A127 to all of the sub regions highway dependency however the “corridor for growth” budget appears to “by-pass” Castle Point!

“The formation of the Task & Finish Group is noted, however the outcomes of this Group and the Full Council decision in March 2016 to reduce the housing provision, do not appear to have taken account of advice and discussions with ECC and other neighbouring authorities.  ECC consider it was at this point when DtC engagement should have been under taken, to review the implications and consequences of the decision on the Plan in its entirety (including unmet housing need, infrastructure requirements, viability, deliverability and evidence).  These discussions did not take place and consequently  have not informed the submitted Local Plan.”

“The County Council would have expected to be engaged on the substantial changes to Local Plan, to enable a thorough re-evaluation of the infrastrucutre requirements, their suitability, deliverability and viability and overall implications on the delivery of ECC services.  Unfortunately there has been no engagement since the decision by CPBC on 23 March 2016 to reduce the housing provision by half and to submit the Plan for examination.”

Southend council’s response;

“The Southend adopted Core Strategy makes provision for 325 dwellings per annum between 2001 and 2021. The strategic housing market assessment 2016 suggests an objectively assessed need figure for Southend of between 953 and 1,132 dwellings per annum.”

“Although officer meetings have taken place over a number of years, housing supply and distribution across south Essex are matters that have not been fully deliberated with all councils. It is considered that cpbchave not taken adequate steps to consider whether neighbouring authorities in south Essex are able to accommodate their own need or the unmet need resulting from the 2016  draft local plan.”

“Southend council contends the duty to cooperate has not been met inrespect to cpbc decision to publish the 2016 draft local plan.”

Rochford council’s response;

“The Council’s (Rochford’s) housing target in the adopted local development plan is 250 homes per year to be delivered up to 2025. The most recent South Essex Strategic Housing Market Assessment (SHMA) identified an objectively assessed (unconstrained) need for the district of between 312 and 392 homes per year.”

“in March 2016 CPBC then determined that, contrary to their own evidence and studies, which supported the 2014 draft plan, the Borough could only accommodate 100 homes per year – less than a third of their actual need (considering the lower end of the range in the SHMA). It is from this point in particular that CPBC failed its legal requirement in relation to the Duty to Co-operate.”

“Although officer level meetings have taken place for a number of years, housing need and distribution of need across South Essex are matters that have not yet been fully deliberated with all Councils at all levels.”

“CPBC contend that “strategic planning issues have been clearly and thoroughly examined and evidenced” which may be the case at the South Essex and Greater Essex levels. However the 2016 draft plan in its current form is not supported by robust evidence, and is not based on effective discussions with neighbouring Councils on if, and how, unmet housing need could be delivered elsewhere in South Essex.”

“There has been a clear failure in the Duty to Co-operate from CPBC since the decision was taken in March 2016 to pursue the current content of the 2016 draft plan. CPBC have not taken adequate steps to consider whether neighbouring authorities in the housing market area are able to accommodate their own need”

“The constraints in the Borough have not altered between 2014, when the Council considered it could deliver at least 200 homes per year, and 2016, when it took the decision that it could only accommodate 100 homes per year, without any change in the evidence.”

“A failure on CPBC’s part to set up an effective mechanism for openly discussing the reasons for this reduction at the earliest opportunity with relevant officers and Members;

“ A failure on CPBC’s part to explore the issues and opportunities with neighbouring authorities that would be inadvertently affected by this further, baseless under provision of need.”

“however, failure on CPBC’s part on this strategic issue is not considered to fundamentally undermine the historic joint working arrangements across South Essex authorities (and Essex County Council). The Council is committed to working with  neighbouring authorities on strategic, cross-boundary issues in the future.”

Basildon council’s response;

“Firstly, if I may, I would like to highlight that Castle Point Borough Council has been instrumental in establishing the current working arrangements for the monthly strategic planning officer group meetings between the five South Essex LPAs and Essex County Council.”

Whilst avoiding direct reference to Basildon’s own Housing Supply Target in comparison to their Objectively assessed Housing Need they state; “there are development requirements that the Council (Basildon) is unlikely to be able to meet within the Borough, and infrastructure that is unlikely to be provided without the assistance from other authorities.”

“Had Castle Point Borough Council continued with its principled approach, as set out in its New Local Plan 2014 to accommodate as much of its own development needs within its boundaries, whilst respecting strategic Green Belt gaps between Bowers Gifford and Benfleet, it is unlikely Basildon Borough Council would be in the same position as now; where it is maintaining a Duty to Cooperate objection to the Castle Point New Local Plan. At that time, the Council had accepted that Castle Point Borough Council had done all it could to accommodate its growth needs and would find it difficult to meet its shortfall.”

“What had not occurred up to that point, however, was that the mechanism/s had not been identified that would be used to facilitate how the wider South Essex Housing Market Area would address that unmet need in its future years, either within Castle Point (as part of an early review of the New Local Plan), or as part of the different local plan processes of other South Essex authorities (or further afield).”

“  Officer conversations did occur as prior to and during 2014 (as noted on Page 4 of the letter) to identify ways in which Basildon Borough could work with Castle Point Borough, through the Duty to Cooperate, to explore strategic planning and cross boundary matters”

“Basildon Council accepted, at that time, that given the physical environmental constraints present in Castle Point Borough, some of which are different from the Basildon Borough context (tidal flood risk in settled areas and proximity to major hazardous installations), that it was unlikely that enough land would be able to be identified within Castle Point to meet all of its development needs in full during the plan period.”

“Basildon Council does not dispute the engagement activities Castle Point refer to in its letter, in respects of councillors across South Essex having previously met to discuss, debate and consider strategic planning and cross boundary matters which affect wider plan-making in the sub-region.”

Referring to the political changes since 2014 leaving a “vacuum in meaningful and collective South Essex Member strategic planning engagement”, “Basildon Borough Council is therefore disappointed that despite the vacuum mentioned above, and in light of the significant change of direction the New Local Plan took following the conclusion of its Task & Finish Group process in 2015, there was no further “member to member” engagement arranged on the proposed change of direction, or its implications for the wider South Essex Housing Market Area by Castle Point Borough Council.”

Unfortunately, given Castle Point’s Full Council had already approved the Publication New Local Plan the day previous, it was too late for Basildon Council to then have meaningful and effective strategic planning discussions of the implications of such a change, which is the basis for its duty to cooperate objection.”

Thurrock council’s response, a most critical and hefty 27 pager;

“The Council (Thurrock) is generally satisfied that at this moment in time it will be able to meet its own development and infrastructure requirements without assistance from other authorities.”

“At its meeting on the 17th November 2016 the South Essex Members Group, Chief Executives and Leaders agreed to the high-level Memorandum of Cooperation (MoU) setting out key principles and a protocol on how the authorities should undertake the Duty to Cooperate.”

“Castle Point Council had also not demonstrated that it complied with the requirements of the Duty to Cooperate. Prior to publication of the draft New Local Plan in 2014 there had been no engagement with Thurrock Council on the local plan preparation, and no discussion or requests to consider any cross boundary matters of importance.”

“There have been no individual meetings or formal correspondence between Castle Point and Thurrock Council regarding any of the matters raised by Thurrock in its representations at the consultation draft of 2014 or the pre-submission stage of the local plan process in 2016. In particular strategic matters of cross boundary of significance between the two authorities of concern to Thurrock include the implications of Castle Point not meeting its OAN and the proposal for and safeguarding of the North Thameside Link Road (at Northwick Road).”

“Castle Point Council has not approached Thurrock Council with a formal request to meet any of its unmet housing need or to discuss the North Thameside Link Road.” END

Whilst these letters appear to reflect questionably on cpbc’s efforts towards cooperation with neighbouring authorities, following the publication of the Local Plan2016, it is clear that given the likelihood that the assessed housing needs will be fully met in individual Borough’s except perhaps Thurrock, there would appear little likelihood cooperation would be fulfilled. Given the lack of resources, the curtailment of cooperation meetings to discuss housing strategically may be justified.

Originally cpbc informed the Examining Inspector; “By 2013 the Council had drafted a plan which it believed complied fully with the Government’s NPPF, and published this in 2014. Guidance regarding the “Duty to Co-operate” was also published in March 2014, and the Council has endeavoured to fully satisfy its requirements.

There was considerable interest in the draft plan, with nearly 5,000 representations received, the majority of which opposed a planning strategy of releasing land in the established Green Belt on the fringes of the built up area in order to try to meet a proportion of objectively assessed housing need. However neighbouring authorities were generally supportive of that approach, while acknowledging that Castle Point would have extreme difficulty in finding land to meet its objectively assessed housing needs in full.

In its further considerations, the Council afforded significant weight to subsequent statements by the Planning Ministers concerning the Government’s determination to protect the Green Belt, and also to further refinements to Planning Practice Guidance (PPG) explaining that objectively assessed housing needs would not necessarily need to be met in full where there are important constraints such as established Green Belt. Guidance from senior planning inspectors at the Planning Inspectorate in briefings to the Council also re-affirmed this approach.”

” as a consequence of the PPG issued in 2014 regarding the “Duty to Co-operate”, the Council initiated what have now become regular monthly meetings to discuss strategic planning matters with South Essex authorities.  As a result, there are well-established mechanisms in place for strategic planning discussions with key partners, at officer and Member level. Good progress is being made on a strategic planning framework for the area, with agreement already in place on strategic planning matters and the key issues which arise from these.”