Duty to Cooperate - Public forum - Planning Advisory Service (PAS)

Hi Phil Reading Section 110 of the Localism Act, I would say that the Duty to Cooperate does not apply to Parish Councils or Neighbourhood Forums as they are not in the list of prescribed bodies e.g. local authorities, county councils etc. The draft Neighbourhood Planning Regulations set out the Statutory bodies that Parish Councils/Neighbourhood Forums are required to engage with. These are very similar to those of a local authority and as with a local authority, I would suggest that a Neighbourhood Plan does not continue to progress without considerable joint working with bodies such as the Environment Agency or Natural England as the plan still needs to be evidence based and deliverable. Regarding the referendum this is a debate which has been long-runner and there was an article in planning magazine back in Nov. 2011 where Baroness Hanham told peers: "I want to make it clear that local authorities can use existing planning mechanisms to take forward planning proposals that a neighbourhood forum or parish council has produced without needing to hold a referendum." http://www.planningresource.co.uk/go/localism_bill/article/1102133/existing-tools-used-instead-referendums/ It would therefore seem possible that a some form of DPD can be produced by a community and adopted by the Council without the need for a referendum. I can understand the principle behind adopting a plan as a DPD e.g. missing out the cost of a referendum and the potential that it is not made/agreed. But it is not something that Mole Valley is advocating to its communities. DPDs to most communities are Council-led which is in stark contrast to the purpose of neighbourhood planning. A NDP is initiated by the community and is community-led. A DPD also requires an Examination in Public as opposed to a 'light-touch examination' by someone suitably qualified. Also why need separate regulations if they can be a DPD??? Suzanne

1. The Duty to Cooperate (section 110) applies to LPAs, counties and other bodies prescribed in the development plan regulations (draft published last year) not neighbourhoods. However if the LPA go down the local plan amendment route to avoid a referendum then the duty will apply to them. 2. No they dont see Barroness Hanhams response to this question in the lords.http://ww w.publications.parliament.uk/pa/ld201011/ldhansrd/text/111012-0003.htm Column 72 'Referendums need to be held where the local neighbourhood forum is putting forward a new plan which may or may not conform to a local development order or the national planning framework....Where there is agreement on the neighbourhood plan between the neighbourhood forum and the local council under the local development plan, a referendum does not have to take place. As long as they are all in agreement and are all working to the same end, the local authority can accept that the neighbourhood plan conforms with the local development plan and therefore does not require a referendum.. It is not essential. As I said, where there is broad and happy agreement between the authority and the community at large, the neighbourhood plan does not require a referendum.’ Neighbourhood plans of course can cover more than one LPA for cross border settlements.

Suzanne - the separate regulations are only there to deal with the non-conforming neighbourhood plans which cant be taken forward as part of the local plan. If no one wants an examination the inquiry can be dealt with through written reps. The inspectorate has said they will treat these cases very informally. Not withstanding the 'light touch' regulations if the neighbourhood plan effects someone's property they can demand a tribunal under article 5 of the Human Rights convention. Given referendums are unnecessary if an LPA wants to use one they could be subject to JR by a concerned council tax payer regarding the cost - note the recent threat of JR in Brixham. The idea of separate light touch regulations is a bit of a joke as they are only likely to be used as if they are contrary to the local plan and pass the inspectors letter. Unless an LPA wishes to waste council tax payers money on an unnecessary referendum this is likely to be an extremely rare event. Could you ever see a circumstance where an inspector would ok a neighbourhood plan going forward if contrary to the tests in the NPPF and contrary to the Local Plan???

I was wondering how many people are looking at York's CD23 and paragraph 6 of the the Summary of the [York] Inspectors Key Concerns and thinking they are fireproof on that one. A quick poll via this thread might be expecting a bit too much I suppose.