Duty to Co-operate - Public forum - Planning Advisory Service (PAS)

As I understand it, the duty to cooperate requires you to demonstrate that in preparing your plan you have worked with other relevant bodies, including neighbouring local planning authorities. You must be able to show an inspector evidence that you have considered strategic/cross-boundary issues in relation to your plan. I'd say that a shared or joint evidence base would be an excellent way of demonstrating this. It doesn't say anywhere in the Act that you must agree with your neighbours. You need to show that you have taken steps to speak to them, but you don't need to show you've come to an agreement on every issue.

Harriet is right that the legal duty to cooperate is not and cannot be a duty to agree - however it also needs to be seen alongside the 'duty to cooperate' soundness test and the presumption in favour of sustainable development. The soundness test from the DNPPF para 48 is to '[meet] unmet requirements from neighbouring authorities where it is practical to do so' Under para 47 LPAs will need to demonstrate evidence of 'work[ing] 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 objectives, principles and policies of this Framework.' If authority A tried to work with authority B but failed is irrelevant to a finding of soundness - what is relevant is whether there is an unmet objective need and whether or not the evidence points to the solution to this unmet need being in the plan being examined. So a proper application of the NPPF would be for an inspector to ask: A) is there evidence of any unmet needs from other authorities that could be met in the plan area? B) Has there been an assessment of locations for this strategic overspill in line with legal requirements - SEA, consultation etc. C) Does the evidence point to this plan area being the most suitable location for this strategic overspill? If it does then the inspector will request an amendment to the submitted plan to make it sound, even if the authority disagreed with its neighbours. If the inspectors found there has been no work on where to take the overspill then to my mind the submitted plan would be both unlawful and contrary to national policy (when the NPPF is finalised) and the inspector should ask for the plan to be withdrawn. So even though there is no 'duty to agree' where there are overspill issues then at the very least LPAs will need to work together on strategic options before any of them can progress and then the first plan examined will help determine what strategic option is taken. To give just one example, and there are many, Aylesbury Vale and MK would need to show to what extent they could take the overspill from South Bucks Green Belt/AOMB authorities and other interlocking Housing market areas.

Andrew, what I meant was that Authority A must take steps to speak to Authority B, and must come up with a solution that they feel tackles the strategic issue in question. It is irrelevant if Authority B disagrees with the policy solution so long as the Inspector thinks it is an appropriate policy. Obviously it would be better if everyone could agree and present a coherant picture to an inspector, which is why it is in Authority B's interest to get involved, so as to not have anything imposed on them by Authority A.