Simple guidance note about how to respond at Publication stage - Public forum - Planning Advisory Service (PAS)

Hampshire County Council has just produced this response form and guidance for our publication - largely borrowed from other sources. http://hants-consult.limehouse.co.uk/file/1996544 I wouldn't say it's been a complete success, as we've still had a number of questions regarding soundess, often showing that the guidance was either not read or not understood. On the other hand, I don't knwo how bad it would have been without it!

Just a thought - are local planning authorities starting to think about the implications of the NPPF and the introduction of the new 'test of soundness' when preparing their Guidance Notes and Representation Forms? A letter that is currently doing the rounds from the Rt. Hon Greg Clark MP (dated 14th Nov 2011) to Cllr Robert Knowles of the Surrey Leaders Group states that the NPPF will be published by 31st March at the latest, but that the Govt. intends to publish it well ahead of time. The problem Mole Valley has with this (and all other LPAs) is that the NPPF (para. 48) changes the 'tests' that DPDs will be decided against by an Inspector. That is to say that a new test is introduced and the LPA will need to show that plans have been 'positively prepared': Positively prepared – the plan should be prepared based on a strategy which seeks to meet objectively assessed development and infrastructure requirements, including unmet requirements from neighbouring authorities where it is practical to do so consistently with the presumption in favour of sustainable development (NPPF, para. 48). Given that the NPPF is more than likely to published by the time of our examination (summer 2012) and potentially halfway through our representation period for our Area Action Plan (AAP) we are currently considering whether it is appropriate that representations are sought on whether the AAP has been positively prepared? We do not want to be in the situation whereby the Inspector asks the Council to reconsult for a set period of time asking this very question at a pre-hearing meeting. We are therefore considering adding this into our representation form and into the guidance the Council makes available to help those making representations. I am waiting a response from PINS on this point i.e. is this approach appropriate. I was just wondering if anyone else had any thoughts???

Thanks Suzanne. I certainly think it's right that you're thinking about this now. As you say, the impact of leaving it until later is far greater. My understanding is that there will now be some transitional arrangements, and these will presumably (possibly?) include trigger points. By that I mean you will know that the stage you have reached either does or does not require you to take the NPPF into account in time for your examination. A pragmatic approach would be to allow you to adopt the plan (if sound of course!) under the existing tests, and give you some time to revise as necessary to meet the new tests. At least that way you would have a sound plan to use in making decisions. Excuse my potential ignorance, but if your plan is not currently being prepared to seek to meet objectively assessed development and infrastructure needs, where it is practical to do so, then you would be found unsound anyway wouldn't you? This would mean you are not preparing a strategy based on evidence. Conversations with neighbours will presumably also have happened, and, where relevant, taken into account. Isn't is just what you (should) do now, but with new 'positive' language? That said, asking questions on representation forms which use the same language as the NPPF would seem a sensible, and dare I say, 'safe' option. I just think you're probably asking the same questions now, just not in the same language.

I should add, in my 'a pragmatic approach' paragraph, I mean, if you have already published (or possibly submitted) your plan, or will have done so when the NPPF is published.

Thanks Adam. As you say we should be meeting the new test anyway - planning positively etc. It's just whether we ask the question and take the 'safe' option in advance of the NPPF rather than having to go back at the request of the Inspector or if we are not found in conformity based on one single question. So the answer is probably yes for now - we will ask the question. And then in the interim or afterwards see what materalises when the transisition arrangements are published either in the NPPF or in advance. All this waiting around though does make it difficult to forward plan!

Thanks Suzanne, Yes, waiting around, in general, should never be the answer. I'm all for doing what you think is best, and what suits your circumstances. That puts the onus on others to 'prove you wrong' rather than you waiting to see if you are right! If the guidance is as light as we expect it will be, then details such as this will always be left to you - within what legal confines there are, of course. After all, the 2008/9 regs really just say 'tell people you're doing a plan on a certain subject and invite comments' followed by 'publish that plan'. All the stuff in between is up to you. I hope we can all start to think about the freedoms we have and the opportunities to be creative. PAS is, of course, here and happy to help!