The role of Memorandums of Understanding in the Duty to Cooperate -Tamworth #NPPF
Further interesting development onwards from Coventry and Rushcliffe on the role of Memorandums of Development and the Duty to Cooperate at Tamworth.
In the Inspectors Letter the Inspector included in the notes of what changes were necessary to make the plan sound
- to align the two separate Anker Valley policy housing allocations in Tamworth Borough and Lichfield District on either side of the B5493 Ashby Road to form a
- comprehensively developed housing site of some 2150 homes;
- more detail on how the 1000 homes outside the Borough to meet its housing requirements will be dealt with by Lichfield and North Warwickshire Councils;
At he exploratory meeting.
Mr Roberts said that the Council intended to remove the restrictions in the various Memorandums of Understanding (MoU) and that these 1000 homes would appear on the Housing Trajectory as part of the Borough’s housing land supply. In response to queries, such as that from John Mitchell, Mr Roberts explained that the Lichfield MoU would be amended to remove restrictions so that both it and the Plan’s Anker Valley allocation could be treated as one comprehensive site (removing the restrictions on working starting only after 2021 or once the necessary linkages were complete). The North Warwickshire MoU would be amended to remove its restrictions, which are primarily not to deliver its homes until 75% of the Anker Valley or Borough homes had been completed.
Whether or not MoUs are needed to cover cross boundary sites to demonstrate DTP compliance has been a hot topic of discussion. The finding here seems to suggest (even though the plan overall failed) that they will if they enable the site to be treated as a whole in an unrestricted manner. Whereafter they can be treated as part of the ‘overspill’ to meet the objectively assessed need of the main tightly bounded town in NPPF terms.
The rest of the letter is worth reading. Unintentionally funny sadly, you only allocated one site, you should have allocated 75 etc.
I have a major post in the works on how EiPs in the last six months have tackled SHMAs of the NPPF ‘Booost’ issue.