After some wearisome days spent in the Town Hall sitting around tables, the Hearing sessions into the Allocations and Infrastructure Development Plan Document are finished. The new rules laid down for the modern local plan inquiry indicate that a plan (now called a Development Plan Document-DPD), when it is submitted for an Inspector’s examination, has to be regarded as “sound”. The definition of “sound” means the plan is a DPD which is JUSTIFIED, EFFECTIVE and consistent with NATIONAL POLICY.
“Justified” means that the document must be:
• founded on a robust and credible evidence base
• the most appropriate strategy when considered against the reasonable alternatives
“Effective” means that the document must be:
• deliverable
• flexible
• able to be monitored.
The lead Inspector (there was a second Inspector to help) made it clear he could not alter the plan to make it sound. Then during the sessions he appeared to invite participants to suggest alterations if they thought the plan lacked soundness in any respect. This approach opened up Pandora’s Box and developers’ hope flooded out. Anybody at the Sessions who felt their interests had been left out were invited to submit representations to show how the plan was unsound and that their piece of land should be taken out of the plan or, more significantly, PUT IN. So, for example, Hartnoll Developments in their full glory were paraded again and Junction 27 was flourished both as panaceas for all Tiverton’s lack of deliverable land. The snag to this reporter’s mind was the public at large have had no opportunity to express their views on these new proposals as they did not form part of the “sound” plan adopted and put forward by the Council. Only if you attended the Hearing Sessions or watched the MDDC relevant website http://www.middevon.gov.uk/index.aspx?articleid=7166 like a predatory hawk would you know what might be going on. THE SNAG IS THAT THE INSPECTOR’S REPORT IS BINDING ON THE DISTRICT COUNCIL. If the Report is politically unacceptable the Council have the right to reject the Report and start the plan again otherwise they are stuck with it. But this puts the Council between a rock and a hard place. The rock is, say, Hartnoll developing as a stand alone development in the open countryside with housing and employment land galore and to hell with the effect on roads, local amenity and sustainable planning OR, a hard place, junking the plan and start spending another raft of rate payers’ money to do it again. The latter may happen if the Inspector finds the Plan unsound as this Society has argued. This outcome will expose some deficiency in the manner with which technical data was handled and jumping the gun by relying upon a draft Regional Spatial Strategy which was materially amended by the Secretary of State and which, anyway, may never be finally agreed by a changed Government.
And now the new Secretary of State, Mr Pickles, has done just that. We no longer have any up to date housing targets.
The Inspectors have requested the MDDC to respond to this change in events. The Council has replied that “the implications of the abolition of the RSS upon the AIDPD are very limited.” The Council relies upon the Core Strategy being an adopted part of the statutory development plan. This of course overlooks the fact that the Core Strategy is now a self compliant document with no obvious relationship on housing numbers to the old RPG10 and the County Strusture Plan which are the remaining parts of the statutory development plan.
The Society has been asked to respond to this nonsense. It had already done so in its original representations for instance:“The MDDC is unable to challenge the draft RSS Policy HMA4. The Tiverton Civic Society (TCS) is not so fettered. It feels a duty to bring to the Inspectors’ notice where the draft RSS out-dated data, and drawn down into the MDDC LDF, may be challenged and why the exceptional targets do not deal with the draft RSS demands for self-sufficiency but are to satisfy a wider imposed requirement unrelated to the needs of local communities in Mid Devon and Tiverton in particular.”This latter reference, with extraordinary prescience, indicated that the HM4A4 housing target was unsustainable and lacked local scrutiny. The new SoS has taken the same line in his revealed new policy on RSS housing targets.
In short we felt, in Mid Devon’s adopted Core Strategy, Mid Devon DC had been over ambitious in slavishly following the draft RSS and had assumed house building target rates extrapolated on the boom years of 2000 - 2006. The SHLAA responses in the evidence base for the ensuing MDDC Allocations and Infrastructure Development Plan Document showed clearly that the house building industry saw no likelihood of these ambitious rates being delivered in the foreseeable future. The MDDC’s officers’ argument of “flexibility” misses the point of the need to plan to rationalised purpose rather than to a dreamed up gross over provision which is undeliverable.
The inference coming from the new SoS is that RSS housing targets are being dropped and locally determined figures will rule. With a Mid Devon Core Strategy having been adopted, the matter seems finessed and the local council has to stick with the unrealistic targets forced upon it from a draft RSS which will not be signed off by the SoS.
However there is an opinion among independent professional planners that anything based (say a Core Strategy) on changed policy (such as the “being abolished” Regional Spatial Strategy housing targets) is out dated and such a Development Plan Framework Document has to be revised to take on board the changed Government policy.
One of the main arguments for the Development Plan Framework, replacing the old Local Plan procedures, was the ease of reviewing a framework document.
These are points we shall seek to make in our response to the Inspectors’ letter request.
The old style “land use” planning which had served for many decades has been replaced by a more complex style admitting some degree of social planning. It is interesting to look back to when this new planning approach was legislated and recall what leading lawyers and an academic had to say.
Christopher Lockhart-Mummery, QC: “A ragbag of measures of inconsequential effect.”
Martin Edward (Barrister): “A classic example of Parliament sorting wheat from chaff. Did the job well but threw away the wheat.”
Professor David Lock:”Like nothing we know.” “Plan for Planet Zog”. “Provision of a strange planning system”. “A terrible tangle.” “Will not survive..”
What a tangled web has been woven with the new forms of “spatial” planning adopted by the past administration.