Here are a few observations from the examination hearing session held on Thursday 30 October.
The good
Lots of work over the past couple of years within the GBSLEP is paying off. All of the LPAs present very supportive of joint working and in their commitment to carry forward local plan reviews where necessary.
It was also good to see the City Council both recognise that the outcome of the strategic housing study could have implications for an early review of the Birmingham Development Plan and also to see a strong and continuing commitment from the City Council to the Spatial Plan for Recovery and Growth.
The not so good
The continuing delays to the GBSEP strategic housing study are doing no favours for anyone. There really is a need to push this forward and the delaying tactics by some of the ‘related authorities’* to be overridden and recent correspondence before the Inspector suggests this is recognised.
The fact that the GBSLEP and Black Country have written into the brief that any final strategy coming from the completed study which relies on capacity in LAs outside their areas will require agreement is conveniently (or maybe deliberately) ignored by those that might be affected. Not acceptable.
*authorities that can be regarded as forming part of the wider housing market area but lying beyond the GBSLEP and Black Country.
And the rest
Staffordshire County Council who were, I believe, the only local authority to claim failure of the duty to co-operate in their representations did not appear in this session although they had previously attended an earlier session when the approach to minerals and waste had been discussed. The effect was that the discussion on compliance with the duty to co-operate focused only on housing matters.
One of the main reasons for preparing the duty to co-operate agreements that did not explicitly come out in the discussion was to ensure that the full range of strategic matters was covered.
There were fewer lawyers at the table representing participants (c.f. the reopened Lichfield hearing, for example) but an increasing and worrying trend appears to be lawyers taking over the role that should be the domain of planners. At the duty to co-operate session Messrs Young and Richards tried, in effect, to construct legal arguments that a failure of the Birmingham Development Plan and by implication all local plans across the peace was the best way forward. That is the law they argue. If that is the case then the surely the law is …..! What the session again demonstrated is that the LPAs in the GBSLEP are trying their best to make this planning system work. The authorities can’t be blamed for the deficiencies of the system.
In relation to the strategic housing study there remains some confusion between what should be a ‘policy off’ technical study and the close involvement of Chief Executives and Members risking ‘policy on’ too early. While understandable, the effect is a contributing factor to the delay.
And finally ...
I was not sure where to put this one but it was a surprise to learn that the Black Country did not anticipate adopting a review of their Joint Core Strategy until 2020 and this followed withdrawal of the earlier ‘offer’ of 3100 spare dwelling capacity to help meet Birmingham’s needs. How can such a timescale be justified when the adopted Joint Core Strategy is neither based on an objective assessment of housing need nor does it consider the significance of growth pressures in Birmingham, part of the same wider HMA?
