This is an HTML version of an attachment to the Freedom of Information request 'Core Strategy'.

BRIEFING NOTE 
 
Northumberland
 Local Plan Core Strategy 
 
● The​ ​Draft​ ​Core​ ​Strategy​ ​was​ ​submitted​ ​to​ ​Government​ ​in​ ​early​ ​April​ ​for​ ​independent 
examination​ ​with​ ​the​ ​hearing​ ​sessions​ ​currently​ ​scheduled​ ​to​ ​commence​ ​in​ ​late 
September​ ​2017.​ ​Further​ ​information​ ​from​ ​the​ ​Inspector​ ​is​ ​due​ ​in​ ​June​ ​and​ ​July​ ​on 
the​ ​timetabling​ ​and​ ​content​ ​of​ ​the​ ​hearing​ ​sessions. 
 
● Relatively​ ​minor​ ​“major​ ​modifications”​ ​to​ ​the​ ​Core​ ​Strategy​ ​could​ ​be​ ​presented​ ​at​ ​the 
examination​ ​as​ ​suggested​ ​amendments​ ​for​ ​the​ ​Inspector​ ​to​ ​consider​ ​and,​ ​if​ ​found 
acceptable,​ ​would​ ​be​ ​subject​ ​to​ ​consultation​ ​as​ ​part​ ​of​ ​any​ ​other​ ​main​ ​modifications 
required​ ​by​ ​the​ ​Inspector.​ ​There​ ​may​ ​however​ ​be​ ​the​ ​need​ ​to​ ​request​ ​a​ ​delay​ ​in​ ​the 
examination​ ​process​ ​so​ ​that​ ​such​ ​amendments​ ​can​ ​be​ ​ful y​ ​considered​ ​by​ ​the 
Council. 
 
● More​ ​fundamental​ ​modifications​ ​to​ ​the​ ​Core​ ​Strategy,​ ​such​ ​as​ ​a​ ​reduction​ ​in​ ​the 
overal ​ ​housing​ ​numbers​ ​and​ ​removal​ ​of​ ​the​ ​proposed​ ​Green​ ​Belt​ ​deletions​ ​for 
example,​ ​could​ ​potential y​ ​be​ ​a​ ​change​ ​in​ ​the​ ​overal ​ ​strategic​ ​direction​ ​of​ ​the​ ​Plan 
requiring​ ​a​ ​withdrawal​ ​of​ ​the​ ​Plan​ ​from​ ​the​ ​examination​ ​process. 
 
● Should​ ​withdrawal​ ​of​ ​Plan​ ​be​ ​required,​ ​a​ ​request​ ​would​ ​need​ ​to​ ​be​ ​made​ ​to 
Government​ ​for​ ​it​ ​to​ ​be​ ​withdrawn​ ​and​ ​advice​ ​sought​ ​on​ ​what​ ​stage​ ​the​ ​Plan​ ​would 
need​ ​to​ ​go​ ​back​ ​to​ ​e.g.​ ​re-publish​ ​under​ ​Regulation​ ​19​ ​(Pre-Submission​ ​Stage),​ ​or 
go​ ​further​ ​back​ ​to​ ​reconsult​ ​under​ ​Regulation​ ​18​ ​(Issues​ ​and​ ​Options​ ​Stage) 
 
Process for withdrawing the Core Strategy 
 
The​ ​Head​ ​of​ ​Planning​ ​Services​ ​has​ ​recently​ ​spoken​ ​to​ ​DCLG​ ​concerning​ ​the​ ​process​ ​for 
withdrawing​ ​a​ ​submitted​ ​Plan​ ​and​ ​the​ ​fol owing​ ​advice​ ​has​ ​been​ ​received​ ​from​ ​DCLG’s​ ​legal 
team​ ​on​ ​two​ ​specific​ ​questions​ ​raised: 
 
(1) Can an LPA withdraw their plan once it has been submitted for examination? 
  
The
 short answer is yes  s.22 PCPA 2004 al ows an LDD to be withdrawn at any time before it is adopted. 
Worth
 being aware that the Localism Act 2011 repealed subsection (2) of s.22 which only al owed an LPA 
to
 withdraw a DPD which had been submitted for examination if the examiner recommends withdrawal, or 
the
 SoS directs withdrawal. 
  
(2)
 Once the plan has been withdrawn, does the LPA effectively have to ‘start again’ at the Reg 18 
consultation
 stage? 
  
Once
 the LPA has withdrawn the plan, they are required (in accordance with Reg 27 of the 2012 Regs) to 
make
 available a statement of that fact at their offices and on their website, send notification to the general 
consultation
 bodies and remove al  the local plan documents from their website. 
  
The
 statutory provisions are silent as to the consequences of withdrawing a plan. PPG, at paragraph 025, 
states
 “Fol owing withdrawal of a Local Plan from examination a Local Planning Authority should consider 
whether
 to republish under regulation 19 or reconsult under regulation 18 of the Town and Country 

Planning (Local Planning) (England) Regulations 2012 and what matters this republication or reconsultation 
should
 address”. 
 
On​ ​the​ ​basis​ ​of​ ​the​ ​above​ ​advice​ ​it​ ​is​ ​possible​ ​for​ ​the​ ​Council​ ​to​ ​withdraw​ ​the​ ​Core​ ​Strategy 
from​ ​examination​ ​to​ ​al ow​ ​for​ ​a​ ​review​ ​and​ ​further​ ​modifications​ ​to​ ​be​ ​made.​ ​Given​ ​that 
submission​ ​of​ ​the​ ​Core​ ​Strategy​ ​for​ ​examination​ ​was​ ​endorsed​ ​by​ ​Ful ​ ​Council​ ​less​ ​than​ ​six 
months​ ​ago​ ​however,​ ​advice​ ​from​ ​Legal​ ​Services​ ​is​ ​that​ ​withdrawal​ ​of​ ​the​ ​document​ ​would 
similarly​ ​require​ ​Ful ​ ​Council​ ​approval.​ ​To​ ​kickstart​ ​the​ ​withdrawal​ ​process​ ​a​ ​motion​ ​would 
be​ ​required,​ ​signed​ ​by​ ​at​ ​least​ ​9​ ​members,​ ​requesting​ ​the​ ​previous​ ​decision​ ​agreeing​ ​to 
submission​ ​of​ ​the​ ​document​ ​to​ ​Government​ ​for​ ​examination​ ​to​ ​be​ ​cal ed​ ​back​ ​to​ ​Ful  
Council. 
 
Key Issues to Consider 
 
● There​ ​is​ ​a​ ​need​ ​for​ ​discussions​ ​with​ ​DCLG​ ​and​ ​the​ ​Planning​ ​Inspectorate​ ​on​ ​how​ ​to 
proceed​ ​should​ ​fundamental​ ​modifications​ ​to​ ​the​ ​Core​ ​Strategy​ ​be​ ​sought,​ ​including 
a​ ​discussion​ ​on​ ​implications​ ​for​ ​potential​ ​Government​ ​intervention. 
 
● DCLG​ ​have​ ​offered​ ​a​ ​Ministerial​ ​visit​ ​to​ ​speak​ ​to​ ​the​ ​new​ ​Administration​ ​about​ ​the 
potential​ ​scenarios​ ​relating​ ​to​ ​the​ ​Core​ ​Strategy​ ​but​ ​this​ ​would​ ​not​ ​be​ ​arranged​ ​until 
after​ ​the​ ​General​ ​Election​ ​on​ ​8th​ ​June.​ ​It​ ​is​ ​considered​ ​important​ ​that​ ​this​ ​discussion 
takes​ ​place​ ​at​ ​the​ ​earliest​ ​opportunity​ ​to​ ​inform​ ​future​ ​decisions​ ​on​ ​the​ ​Core​ ​Strategy. 
 
● The​ ​timing​ ​of​ ​any​ ​withdrawal​ ​of​ ​the​ ​Core​ ​Strategy​ ​is​ ​critical​ ​in​ ​terms​ ​of​ ​forthcoming 
public​ ​inquiries​ ​during​ ​June​ ​relating​ ​to​ ​Highthorn​ ​Surface​ ​Mine​ ​and​ ​a​ ​proposed 
Barratts​ ​housing​ ​site​ ​at​ ​New​ ​Hartley.​ ​Withdrawal​ ​of​ ​the​ ​Plan​ ​during​ ​and/or​ ​prior​ ​to​ ​the 
end​ ​of​ ​these​ ​public​ ​inquiries​ ​would​ ​throw​ ​the​ ​inquiry​ ​processes​ ​into​ ​disarray,​ ​likely 
resulting​ ​in​ ​an​ ​adjournment​ ​of​ ​both​ ​inquiries​ ​and​ ​potential y​ ​weakening​ ​the​ ​Council’s 
position​ ​in​ ​both​ ​cases,​ ​particularly​ ​in​ ​relation​ ​to​ ​New​ ​Hartley​ ​where​ ​housing​ ​land 
supply​ ​issues​ ​are​ ​paramount​ ​to​ ​the​ ​Council’s​ ​defence​ ​of​ ​its​ ​refusal​ ​reasons. 
Tactical y​ ​it​ ​is​ ​therefore​ ​considered​ ​by​ ​Officers​ ​that​ ​any​ ​decision​ ​to​ ​withdraw​ ​the​ ​Core 
Strategy​ ​should​ ​not​ ​be​ ​taken​ ​until​ ​after​ ​both​ ​inquiries​ ​have​ ​finished​ ​(currently 
anticipated​ ​to​ ​be​ ​21st​ ​June)​ ​due​ ​to​ ​the​ ​complications​ ​this​ ​would​ ​otherwise​ ​present​ ​for 
the​ ​public​ ​inquiries.​ ​The​ ​Planning​ ​Inspectorate/Secretary​ ​of​ ​State​ ​would​ ​stil ​ ​have​ ​to 
have​ ​regard​ ​to​ ​any​ ​withdrawal​ ​of​ ​the​ ​Core​ ​Strategy​ ​in​ ​making​ ​their​ ​final​ ​decisions, 
and​ ​would​ ​possibly​ ​seek​ ​additional​ ​evidence​ ​from​ ​al ​ ​parties​ ​involved​ ​on​ ​the 
implications​ ​of​ ​the​ ​withdrawal​ ​to​ ​their​ ​respective​ ​cases,​ ​but​ ​this​ ​would​ ​be​ ​most​ ​likely 
dealt​ ​with​ ​through​ ​an​ ​exchange​ ​of​ ​written​ ​representations​ ​rather​ ​than​ ​re-opening​ ​the 
public​ ​inquiries. 
 
● It​ ​is​ ​important​ ​to​ ​establish​ ​the​ ​changes​ ​being​ ​sought​ ​by​ ​the​ ​new​ ​Administration​ ​in 
relation​ ​to​ ​the​ ​overal ​ ​housing​ ​figures,​ ​housing​ ​distribution​ ​across​ ​the​ ​County​ ​and​ ​the 
impacts​ ​on​ ​key​ ​strategic​ ​site​ ​al ocations​ ​including​ ​those​ ​in​ ​the​ ​Green​ ​Belt.​ ​This​ ​wil  
ultimately​ ​dictate​ ​how​ ​far​ ​back​ ​in​ ​the​ ​plan-preparation​ ​process​ ​we​ ​wil ​ ​need​ ​to​ ​go. 
Counsel​ ​advice,​ ​and​ ​advice​ ​from​ ​DCLG​ ​and​ ​the​ ​Planning​ ​Inspectorate,​ ​wil ​ ​need​ ​to 

be​ ​sought​ ​on​ ​procedural​ ​matters​ ​once​ ​the​ ​potential​ ​changes​ ​to​ ​the​ ​Plan​ ​are​ ​more 
clear. 
 
● Preferably,​ ​the​ ​level​ ​of​ ​change​ ​would​ ​be​ ​capable​ ​of​ ​being​ ​dealt​ ​with​ ​through​ ​a​ ​further 
Reg​ ​19​ ​stage​ ​which​ ​would​ ​involve​ ​approximately​ ​6​ ​-​ ​8​ ​months​ ​of​ ​work​ ​on​ ​revisions​ ​to 
the​ ​Core​ ​Strategy​ ​and​ ​the​ ​supporting​ ​evidence​ ​base​ ​plus​ ​time​ ​al owed​ ​for​ ​the 
Council’s​ ​internal​ ​approval​ ​processes​ ​resulting​ ​in​ ​an​ ​overal ​ ​9​ ​to​ ​12​ ​month​ ​delay. 
Likely​ ​costs​ ​involved​ ​in​ ​making​ ​modifications​ ​to​ ​the​ ​Core​ ​Strategy,​ ​revisions​ ​to​ ​the 
supporting​ ​evidence​ ​base,​ ​carrying​ ​out​ ​the​ ​necessary​ ​consultation​ ​and​ ​providing 
additional​ ​staff​ ​resource​ ​to​ ​speed​ ​up​ ​the​ ​process​ ​is​ ​estimated​ ​at​ ​£350k 
 
● Alternatively,​ ​should​ ​the​ ​changes​ ​be​ ​so​ ​significant​ ​that​ ​they​ ​would​ ​effectively 
represent​ ​a​ ​new​ ​strategic​ ​direction​ ​for​ ​the​ ​Plan​ ​then​ ​going​ ​back​ ​to​ ​Reg​ ​18​ ​stage 
would​ ​be​ ​necessary.​ ​A​ ​current​ ​estimate​ ​of​ ​the​ ​amount​ ​of​ ​work​ ​required​ ​in​ ​preparing​ ​a 
new​ ​Plan,​ ​new​ ​evidence​ ​base​ ​and​ ​the​ ​numerous​ ​consultation​ ​stages​ ​that​ ​would​ ​be 
necessary​ ​would​ ​lead​ ​to​ ​at​ ​least​ ​a​ ​two​ ​year​ ​delay​ ​in​ ​re-submitting​ ​the​ ​Plan​ ​to 
Government​ ​and​ ​costs​ ​comfortably​ ​exceeding​ ​£500k 
 
● Withdrawal​ ​of​ ​the​ ​Core​ ​Strategy​ ​would​ ​leave​ ​the​ ​Council​ ​and​ ​local​ ​communities​ ​at 
risk​ ​of​ ​being​ ​disadvantaged​ ​by​ ​speculative/unplanned​ ​development​ ​whilst​ ​changes 
are​ ​made​ ​to​ ​the​ ​Plan.​ ​There​ ​is​ ​also​ ​an​ ​increased​ ​likelihood​ ​of​ ​significant​ ​planning 
appeals​ ​in​ ​cases​ ​where​ ​the​ ​Council​ ​seeks​ ​to​ ​resist​ ​development​ ​proposals​ ​on​ ​the 
basis​ ​of​ ​a​ ​Plan​ ​that​ ​is​ ​withdrawn​ ​and​ ​carries​ ​no​ ​weight​ ​in​ ​the​ ​interim​ ​period.​ ​It​ ​is 
therefore​ ​essential​ ​that,​ ​should​ ​the​ ​Plan​ ​be​ ​withdrawn,​ ​any​ ​time​ ​gap​ ​between 
withdrawal​ ​and​ ​resubmission​ ​to​ ​Government​ ​for​ ​examination​ ​is​ ​minimised. 
 
● A​ ​reduction​ ​in​ ​the​ ​overal ​ ​housing​ ​target​ ​figure​ ​from​ ​24,320​ ​to​ ​between​ ​19,000​ ​- 
21,000​ ​would​ ​stil ​ ​al ow​ ​the​ ​Council​ ​to​ ​present​ ​the​ ​Plan​ ​as​ ​a​ ​strategy​ ​for​ ​growth. 
There​ ​are​ ​two​ ​evidence-based​ ​scenarios​ ​carried​ ​out​ ​by​ ​the​ ​Council’s​ ​consultant 
Edge​ ​Analytics​ ​that​ ​would​ ​support​ ​this​ ​approach,​ ​albeit​ ​changes​ ​to​ ​the​ ​anticipated 
unemployment​ ​and​ ​commuting​ ​ratios​ ​for​ ​the​ ​County​ ​would​ ​be​ ​required.​ ​On​ ​a 
settlement-by-settlement​ ​basis​ ​this​ ​would​ ​stil ​ ​represent​ ​growth​ ​but​ ​would​ ​result​ ​in 
some​ ​loss​ ​of​ ​working​ ​age​ ​population.​ ​This​ ​then​ ​reduces​ ​the​ ​demographic​ ​re-balance 
and​ ​would​ ​be​ ​likely​ ​to​ ​make​ ​the​ ​achievement​ ​of​ ​10,000​ ​new​ ​jobs​ ​much​ ​harder.​ ​The 
potential​ ​impact​ ​of​ ​a​ ​lower​ ​overal ​ ​housing​ ​figure​ ​on​ ​delivery​ ​of​ ​the​ ​Council’s 
Economic​ ​Strategy​ ​would​ ​therefore​ ​need​ ​to​ ​be​ ​considered. 
 
● A​ ​reduction​ ​in​ ​the​ ​proposed​ ​housing​ ​numbers​ ​would​ ​assist​ ​in​ ​overcoming​ ​existing 
opposition​ ​from​ ​many​ ​local​ ​communities​ ​and​ ​neighbouring​ ​authorities​ ​such​ ​as 
Newcastle​ ​and​ ​Gateshead​ ​who​ ​consider​ ​the​ ​current​ ​proposed​ ​level​ ​of​ ​housing 
growth​ ​to​ ​be​ ​too​ ​ambitious​ ​for​ ​Northumberland​ ​and​ ​potential y​ ​prejudicial​ ​to​ ​the 
success​ ​of​ ​their​ ​housing​ ​market​ ​areas.​ ​However,​ ​whereas​ ​the​ ​main​ ​volume 
housebuilders​ ​and​ ​the​ ​Home​ ​Builders​ ​Federation​ ​(HBF)​ ​are​ ​very​ ​supportive​ ​of​ ​the 
current​ ​version​ ​of​ ​the​ ​Core​ ​Strategy,​ ​a​ ​reduction​ ​in​ ​the​ ​overal ​ ​housing​ ​numbers 
would​ ​inevitably​ ​result​ ​in​ ​significant​ ​chal enge​ ​from​ ​the​ ​development​ ​industry​ ​at​ ​any 
future​ ​examination.