Will a ‘Fair shares’ housing numbers carve up – without any strategic planning – meet the Duty to Cooperate?

A trend in some areas, notably Greater Birmingham, is for there strategic plans to be based on a pro-rata population based carve up of SHMA numbers rather than a planned one, least of all one subject to options appraisal and SEA, where areas with greatest opportunity having highest numbers.  The basis for this is where unanimity is the rule the receivers will not be able to sell it.

Such a carve up, similar to old style structure plan county carve ups – need involve no planning at all.

Is this justifiable?

In terms of the soundness test of positively prepared the proposed change to make ‘an effective plan’ the test rather than ‘the most effective plan’ the change would go backwards in making it impossible to point to a better more sustainable location elsewhere as the lcoation for development.  this change would be the antithesis of planning.  it would be planning by spreadsheet rather than planning by analysis and geography.  It would prevent objectors making democratic arguments about alternatives and hence probably contrary to the common law tests on public consultation.
In terms of the legal tests – well of course the DTC is not a duty to agree (my term) but mere cooperation is not enough.  The test legal test as guidance makes clear is to ‘to maximise the effectiveness of Local and Marine Plan preparation’ and so (say) all authorities got together and agreed no housing that would not be an effective plan.  Mere agreement does not comply with the duty – it must positively agree and maximise the effectiveness of that agreement.  So a spreadhseet based carve up- without analysis of alternatives – would breach the duty in my opinion, before even considering whether common consultation law and EU SEA law would have been breached as well (which they would have been).

 

Advertisements

One thought on “Will a ‘Fair shares’ housing numbers carve up – without any strategic planning – meet the Duty to Cooperate?

  1. It’s happening at South Oxfordshire, too. In SODC’s Second Preferred Options draft LP they have seen fit to apply a 15% growth figure based on dwelling count, as at the 2011 census, for all of the market towns and larger villages. The 15% figure appears to be arbitrary, let alone the allocation methodology. Their reasoning is that it would oversupply dwelling numbers to the tune of 3,000+ to help their quest for a 5-year supply of housing land. SODC appear to be expecting the 15 market town and large village neighbourhood plans to sort this all out for them.

Leave a Reply

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

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com 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 )

Google+ photo

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

Connecting to %s