The problem is that we are all stuck with tests which are both so demanding as to be impossible to meet and so vague that their meaning is often difficult to guess. It is clear that neither Government Office nor PINS feel able to state with any confidence that any LDD has met these tests. GONW comments are peppered with unhelpful comments such as 'you should satisfy yourselves that you have met test...' With the threat of High Court challenge, Inspectors have no option but to take the tests literally and, given that they cannot pronounce a plan, or changes to it, to be sound, are left with no option but to strike down the whole document. The soundness tests do not differentiate between desirable and essential. The key flaws are; Tests iv) and vi) are breached with every single change in circumstance. Test vii) in requiring the most appropriate option in all the circumstances from an infinity of possibilities . Test viii) and Test ix) are contradictory. You can either have a command and control plan or a flexible plan but not both. What is needed is action now to require flexibility in the interpretation of the tests, and rewording to remove ambiguities. Tests iv) and vi) could be reworded with the addition of 'at the time of submission'. Test vi) could be reworded to read 'The strategies etc. are appropriate in the circumstances having considered the relevant alternatives; Test viii) and ix) could be amalgamated into a requirement to demonstrate mechanisms for monitoring which are realistic, achievable and flexible. As things stand, however good our documents may be, the likelihood for most of us is that the Lichfield experience be repeated. This is not very good, either for morale or for public confidence in the system.
