A question of efficiency? Finish a Core Strategy or Produce a single Docume - Public forum - Planning Advisory Service (PAS)

It is an interesting question and one we know a lot of authorities have been thinking about. I would also suggest it is a question of risk as well as efficiency. What is the risk to an authority of having no up to date policies in place? I would suggest that an adopted core strategy would provide a basis on which to make decisions, supported by evidence that has had the benefit of being through an examination. So if you are actually ready for submission, why would you delay any further? If you are further back in the process, or perhaps have genuine concerns about the soundness of your plan 'vs the NPPF' then you do not have a CS ready for submission. I would think there is more scope for considering alternatives, as you will not be getting any up to date policies in place in the next 12 months anyway. It would be good to hear from those in local authorities of course, so please dive in :-)

I empathise with the dilemma, however, I can't help but think that 'three years to adoption if things go well" to paraphrase, puts adoption at least six months beyond the next general election. If there were to be a change of government, some sort of further change in development planning legislation to re-introduce strategic planning has to be a probability if not a dead certainty. I think it is a 'bird in the hand is worth two in the bush' type situation. Incidentally, speaking as a local authority policy planner for over twenty years, I think you have chosen a particularly apt alias for this place.

Thanks Toby, I spoke to a retired local planner a couple of years ago with 35 years under his belt but only one adopted local plan to his credit, so I think the alias applies to many of us. The 'bird in hand' argument is useful, but when one reads that Harbough has decided that its one year old Core Strategy needs replacing, you have to be quite certain yours isnt a dead parrot, if I might put it that way. Adam writes of the risk of not having an up to date plan and there may be some of those, but equally more might be gained by the Option 2, suggested in my initial post. As I understand it policies in a plan pre-dating the NPPF will only be out of date if they clash with it.

Thanks, I think your boulder just rolled over my toe! I must admit I can't see a good reason to delay the submission of a plan that has been through x rounds of consultation, taking public and Members with it (sometimes kicking and screaming, no doubt). If you have an opportunity to get some new, evidenced policies adopted, that can only help you. Otherwise, even if your old policies don't clash with the NPPF, they must be based on old evidence, and any applicant wishing to appeal is going to bring plenty of up to date evidence to the table. Let's say you have an affordable housing policy based on a SHMA from 2007. Having a policy on affordable housing is something which is in line with the NPPF. But having one that is based on out of date evidence isn't likely to get much support at examination. It is a plan-led system but the plan must be based on robust and up to date evidence. I appreciate that is a bit of a clunky example but it'll have to do! I think the option to combine or press ahead really should be made far sooner than 'ready to submit'. If you have yet to publish, and you're possibly more than 6 months away, or rather you have room to do more engagement without confusing everyone, then that's the time to consider Option 2. i think then, it's a very good Option. As for the Harborough example, they are not the only ones doing an early review. But I believe you are still in a far stronger position reviewing an adopted plan, with evidence that has been through examination, than changing tack on a plan that hasn't been examined. As ever, this is just my opinion.