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Government for it to be withdrawn and advice sought on what stage the Plan would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withdrawn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repealed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withdrawn,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withdrawn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.