Duty to Cooperate Position Statements

Object

Representation ID: 9317

Received: 28/07/2022

Respondent: Bedfordia Developments Ltd and Marcol Industrial Investment LLP

Agent: Lichfields

Legally compliant? No

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? No

The Local Plan is not legally complaint owing to its failure to comply with the duty to co-operate. Our review of the supporting documents, particularly the Duty to Cooperate Position Statements (April 2022) and the Sustainability Appraisal Report (April 2022), suggests that the Council has not co-operated sufficiently with its neighbouring authorities regarding the strategic cross-boundary impacts of the proposed new settlement at Little Barford. The evidence base has not considered the transportation and infrastructure requirements that may be required to support the chosen growth strategy as per the NPPF paragraph 24 and the legal Duty to Co-operate.

Object

Representation ID: 9451

Received: 29/07/2022

Respondent: Prologis

Agent: Lichfields

Legally compliant? No

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? No

Please see attached report for detail

Object

Representation ID: 9598

Received: 29/08/2022

Respondent: Urban & Civic plc

Legally compliant? Not specified

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? No

In the Summary of Comments document (on the Issues and Options stage) the need for effective cross boundary planning is not properly addressed, despite our representation and others in a similar vein.
The Duty to Co-operate Submission Statements (amongst the supporting documents to the Submission Plan) provide no further reassurance, in fact they serve to highlight the inadequacy of the co-operation. It is stated that the discussion with neighbouring authorities has proceeded without any disclosure of potential allocations, so it is difficult to see how it might have yielded effective outcomes. There is no evidence of engagement with South Cambridgeshire, which would seem to be vital given the implications for the A421. Furthermore, the statements identify a long list of cross boundary considerations noting potential significant impacts arising from what is proposed. These are precisely the matters that should have been subject to detailed discussion and resolution, to inform policy formulation, particularly the approach to the delivery and the timing of development relative to cross boundary infrastructure. Instead, these critical considerations are identified as ‘requiring further co-operation’ and the relevant strategic policies fail to address delivery issues entirely. The Statement records no progress on the relevant matters and as such is not in the spirit of or reflective of the approach required by the NPPF (paragraphs 24-27). On this basis, the Plan is at risk of being found not to be effective in the terms of the NPPF: the allocations reliant on cross boundary infrastructure ‘are not deliverable over the plan period, based on effective joint working on cross-boundary strategic matters that have been dealt with rather than deferred, as evidenced by the statement of common ground.’ The stated position in the DtC Submission Statements is that all major issues are deferred.


U&C are used to working in circumstances where there is an absence of clarity on infrastructure timing and delivery. Bedford Borough Council must be applauded for wanting to get on with the job, even though so much contextual information and infrastructure commitment is lagging. It is not, however, appropriate to simply ignore the very significant burden that uncertain infrastructure requirements place upon development and make allocations without constraint or regard for the potential implications. Where allocations are dependent upon significant, future infrastructure investment, policy should be clear that the development must either deliver that infrastructure (identify developer contributions) or cannot proceed until there is a clear commitment to delivery. The lack of clarity in the Policies, contingent upon investment in East West Rail or other significant infrastructure, risks delivery of the Plan allocations and potentially compromises the proper planning and delivery of growth elsewhere within the Central Area.
It appears to be possible to shape allocations for the earlier part of the Plan period, which can be justified by the evidence base, as it stands (it appears comprehensive in respect of localised need and impacts) and then to shape more broadly scoped policies for longer-term growth locations. While the NPPF/PPG provides limited guidance on the form of such policies, it does point to them shaping a process as a way forward, including further work required. In our experience as a master developer, it is helpful if such policies:
• are explicit about the limitations of the evidence base at the point the Plan is prepared.
• identify the issues and inter-dependencies that are relevant to determining the future scale and location of growth within the broad parameters identified;
• are clear about the pre-requisite infrastructure requirements and associated triggers (or addresses the need to resolve this at a later date, when there is further clarity);
• scope the further work and the cross-boundary collaboration which is necessary to safeguard comprehensive and co-ordinated development.

Comment

Representation ID: 9954

Received: 25/07/2022

Respondent: Barton Willmore

The duty to cooperate was introduced by section 33A of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 20041 and the Localism Act 2011. It places a legal duty on local planning authorities, county councils and prescribed public bodies to work together on strategic cross boundary matters.
Paragraph 27 of the NPPF states that in order to demonstrate effective and on-going joint working, one or more statement(s) of common ground should be produced, and these should be made publicly available throughout the plan-making process.
However, the published duty to cooperate statement advises that the Councils neighbours and partners are yet to have sight of the detail contained in the plan’s policies and they do not know which sites are proposed for allocation.
In order to be considered ‘positively prepared’ and ‘effective’ (in accordance with the tests of soundness set out at paragraph 35 of the NPPF), a statement of common ground should be provided, documenting the cross-boundary matters being addressed and progress in cooperating to address these. This should be made publicly available to ensure transparency.

Comment

Representation ID: 9969

Received: 29/07/2022

Respondent: Gladman Developments Ltd

The Duty to Cooperate is a legal requirement established through Section 33(A) of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004, as amended by Section 110 of the Localism Act. It requires local authorities to engage constructively, actively and on an ongoing basis with neighbouring authorities on cross-boundary strategic issues throughout the process of Plan preparation. As demonstrated through the outcome of the 2020 Sevenoaks District Council Local Plan examination and subsequent Judicial Review, if a Council fails to satisfactorily discharge its Duty to Cooperate, this cannot be rectified through modifications and an Inspector must recommend non-adoption of the Plan.
Whilst Gladman recognise that the Duty to Cooperate is a process of ongoing engagement and collaboration, as set out in the Planning Practice Guidance (PPG) it is clear that it is intended to produce effective policies on cross-boundary strategic matters. In this regard, Bedford Borough Council must be able to demonstrate that it has engaged and worked with neighbouring authorities, alongside their existing joint working arrangements, to satisfactorily address cross-boundary strategic issues, and the requirement to meet any unmet housing needs. This is not simply an issue of consultation but a question of effective cooperation.
The NPPF sets out that local planning authorities should produce, maintain, and update one or more Statement(s) of Common Ground throughout the plan making process1. The SoCG(s) should provide a written record of the progress made by the strategic planning authorities during the process of planning for strategic cross-boundary matters and will need to demonstrate the measures local authorities have taken to ensure cross boundary matters have been considered and what actions are required to ensure issues are proactively dealt with e.g. unmet housing needs.
The PPG is also clear that local authorities should have made a SoCG available on their website by the time they publish their draft plan, in order to provide communities and other stakeholders with a transparent picture of how they have collaborated2. The Bedford Local Plan pre-submission consultation is not accompanied by a SoCG nor a Duty to Co-operate Statement. Instead, a series of position statements accompany the document as neighbouring authorities were not aware of the contents of the pre-submission Local Plan ahead of its formal publication. As such at this stage, it is not possible to ascertain duty to cooperate partners views of the Local Plan and where areas of agreement or disagreement may arise. Following publication of either a signed SoCG and / or Duty to Co-operate Statement, Gladman reserve the right to submit further comments on the Council’s compliance with the Duty to Co-operate either in written Examination Hearing Statements or orally during Examination Hearing Sessions.

Object

Representation ID: 9983

Received: 27/07/2022

Respondent: Home Builders Federation

Legally compliant? Not specified

Sound? Not specified

Duty to co-operate? No

Limited evidence as to the actual co-operation that has taken place between neighbouring boroughs have been provided by the Council within the Duty to Co-operate Position Statements. These statements provide an indication as to the potential cross border issue but nothing with regard to how the authorities are working together to address the matters at hand. Whilst the Council note that their intention was not to document every discussion and all the joint working that has taken place it is necessary to provide some evidence as to the discussions and how they have informed the preparation of the local plan. Without more detail any inspector examining the plan could not with any certainty state that the Council have fulfilled their duty to co-operate.

Object

Representation ID: 10123

Received: 29/07/2022

Respondent: Bedfordia Developments Ltd and Bedfordshire Charitable Trust Ltd

Agent: DLP Planning Limited

Legally compliant? No

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? No

2.28 The Duty to Cooperate (DtC) is a legal requirement established through section 33(A) of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004, as amended by Section 110 of the Localism Act. The DtC requires local planning authorities to engage constructively, actively and on an ongoing basis with neighbouring authorities on cross-boundary strategic issues through the process of ongoing engagement and collaboration.
2.29 As is discussed further below, whilst we have more significant concerns relating to soundness and legal compliance relating to the SA and site assessments and the application of a stepped trajectory, we also consider the proximity of the Little Barford new settlement to Huntingdonshire and the associated implications, has been given insufficient consideration in the prepared Position Statement.
2.30 The allocation of Land at Little Barford is a strategic cross boundary matter with the potential that Huntingdonshire District Council, given the closer relationship with the population and settlements of Huntingdonshire than that of Bedford, will consider that growth in this location will be capable of accommodating the needs of their population. The Position Statement sitting within the evidence base does not reflect this relationship and the impact on Huntingdonshire’s needs. Further cross-boundary engagement is considered necessary and should be reflected in an updated Position Statement that considers housing need, deliverability and engagement with infrastructure providers.
2.31 In terms of the Position Statement relied upon (signed 1 April 2022, prior to publication of details within the Plan for Submission) this simply states in relation to housing provision that further cooperation may be required ‘subject to its location’. Plainly at the time this statement was completed Bedford Borough Council was aware of the proposed allocation at Little Barford within its selected strategy. The Council would also plainly be aware of Huntingdonshire District Council’s objection to either Option 2c or 2d including new- settlement scale growth in this location, as outlined in its Preferred Options consultation response8.
2.32 We would note particularly those elements of the representations that relate to the feasibility and achievability of satisfying infrastructure requirements at the site (including new rail crossings) and the related impact on lead-in and delivery timescales as being highly relevant to our objections regarding the Council’s proposed reliance on a stepped trajectory and lack of evidential support for unprecedented completion rates in excess of 600 units per annum. For example, the objections from Hunts DC note:
“Huntingdonshire District Council acknowledge that this site is likely to benefit from being in closer proximity to a new East-West rail route where a new station is expected along the East Coast Mainline Railway between St Neots and Sandy and thus has greater potential to incorporate sustainable modes of transport. However, there is still uncertainty on the location of an East-West railway line station and when it may be delivered. Additionally, there is also the timing and delivery of the proposed realigned A428 route which will impact the eastern edge and southern aspects of the site to consider. These may give rise to delays in effective masterplanning of the site, mix of land uses, incorporation of sustainable and accessible transport and its eventual delivery.”

Comment

Representation ID: 10337

Received: 29/07/2022

Respondent: Elstow Parish Council

Authorities to ensure a coordinated approach. The Parish Council have always been mindful that that Central Bedfordshire are growing with significant growth in many local areas. There is enormous growth only just a short distance along the A421 corridor with 5,000 houses currently

at planning application stage for a strategically allocated site known as Marston Valley. But there is also more worrying continued large-scale development on the edge of the village (e.g. south of Wixams) which would further impact on the unique character of Elstow village as the local rural highways network is at full capacity.

Object

Representation ID: 10535

Received: 26/07/2022

Respondent: Barton Willmore

Legally compliant? Not specified

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? Not specified

The duty to cooperate was introduced by section 33A of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 20041 and the Localism Act 2011. It places a legal duty on local planning authorities, county councils and prescribed public bodies to work together on strategic cross boundary matters.

Paragraph 27 of the NPPF states that in order to demonstrate effective and on-going joint working, one or more statement(s) of common ground should be produced, and these should be made publicly available throughout the plan-making process.
However, the published duty to cooperate statement advises that the Councils neighbours and partners are yet to have sight of the detail contained in the plan’s policies and they do not know which sites are proposed for allocation.
In order to be considered ‘positively prepared’ and ‘effective’ (in accordance with the tests of soundness set out at paragraph 35 of the NPPF), a statement of common ground should be provided, documenting the cross-boundary matters being addressed and progress in cooperating to address these. This should be made publicly available to ensure transparency.