Title: Waste planning and the

Duty to Co-operate

Alice Lester

Date: September 2014 www.pas.gov.uk

Duty to Cooperate Overview• Legal Duty

• Affects local authorities and other public bodies

• Requirement:

– To engage….

• Constructively – reasonable opportunity

• Actively

• On an ongoing basis

– To maximise….

• the effectiveness of Local (and Marine) Plan preparation

• in the context of strategic cross boundary matters.

Duty to Cooperate Overview• Loss of regional framework

• Reflects realities of the market which often does not

‘respect’ administrative boundaries

“net self –sufficiency”

Duty to Cooperate Overview

• Government expectations – NPPF:

– Local Plans should be based on co-operation with

neighbouring authorities

– Planning strategically across boundaries (178 – 181)

• joint working on areas of common interest to be

– diligently undertaken

– for the mutual benefit of neighbouring authorities.

– And the ‘greater good’.

Duty to Cooperate Overview

Paragraphs 171 – 181 continued..

• LPAs should work collaboratively with other bodies to

ensure that strategic priorities across local boundaries

are properly co-ordinated and clearly reflected in

individual Local Plans.

• Work together to meet development requirements which

cannot wholly be met within their own areas

• Consider producing joint planning policies on strategic

matters

Duty to Cooperate Overview

• WFD Article 16: Principles of Proximity and

Self-Sufficiency

– PPS10 – plan to provide framework to enable

communities to take responsibility for own waste +

nearest appropriate installation (mixed MSW)

– But...proximity principle doesn’t mean that each

WPA must deal solely with its own waste.

• Recognising economies of scale in facility provision as

well as WDA & WPA joint working

Duty to Cooperate Overview

• Some Compliance challenges:

Legal compliance issue - Inspector has little or no

room for manoeuvre

It’s not a ‘duty to agree’ - may agree to disagree

Local plan making timetables rarely align but it

can’t be fixed retrospectively

Duplication of effort - paperchase

Duty to Cooperate Overview

• Some Compliance challenges:

Legal compliance so put on belts and braces –

proportionate?

Political minefield – managing waste tough

enough but managing someone else's?!

Views of neighbours count – DtC being used to

attempt to block local plans where process is

challengeable (E.g. Plymouth/Devon?)

Is the cross boundary management of waste

always strategic?.....

‘Strategic Matters’

• Section 33A P&CP Act 2004

• (3) “The activities within this subsection are

– (a) the preparation of development plan documents,

– ……so far as relating to a strategic matter.”

• (4) For the purposes of subsection (3), each of the following is a

“strategic matter”—

– use of land that has or would have a significant impact on at least

two planning areas

• use of land in a two-tier area if the development or use—

– (i) is a county matter, or

– (ii) has or would have a significant impact on a county matter.

‘Strategic Priorities’

• NPPF

• Paragraph 179

– Local planning authorities are expected to work

‘collaboratively with other bodies to ensure that strategic

priorities across local authority boundaries are properly

coordinated and clearly reflected in local plans’

• Paragraph 154 sets out “strategic priorities” and

includes “waste management”

What makes waste management

‘strategic’?

• Waste management facilities generally have

catchments that transcend administrative

boundaries.

• Waste travels across administrative boundaries

hence ‘net self sufficiency’

• Waste produced by one community is managed in

another – but all communities should take some

responsibility

• This may result in ‘larger than local’ impacts.

• But is waste management always strategic?

When does waste management

become strategic?

DtC compliance for waste

1. Demonstrate awareness of the amount of waste arisings and

how the amount of waste produced is likely to change over

coming years

2. Understand where waste is currently going

3. Assess whether the current arrangements can continue

based on the length of existing authorisations and what

additional routes may be required.

4. Show application of the proximity principle and the waste

hierarchy

5. Show they have engaged with all authorities in receipt of

waste (now and in the future) and demonstrate the need for

waste to be transported outwith their area. NuLeAF Report on DtC & radioactive waste

Case Studies: North London

North London Waste Plan

• Expectation in Plan that waste from London

would be landfilled elsewhere

• Little dialogue with other authorities

• Did North London Boroughs have a duty to co-

operate with the planning authorities receiving

waste?

North London Waste Plan

• Inspector concluded:

– waste management qualifies as a “strategic matter” for the

S33A duty

– the scale of transport “is likely to have a very significant

impact on the areas where waste received” (e.g. 100kt to

Northamptonshire, 71kt to Bedfordshire, 52kt to Essex)

– the absence of policies/proposals in NLWP to manage all

the waste arisings and the consequent continuation of the

export of waste would be likely to have a significant impact

on at least two planning areas – consequently there is a DtC

Identifying strategic impacts

• Should any waste movement be classed as

strategic?

• Quantity thresholds

– 5,000 or 500 tonnes?

• Does it depend on type?

– Non-hazardous or hazardous

• Should it be assessed on a relative basis? i.e. % of

waste arisings movements account for.

Whose impact?

Question…

• From who’s point of view?

• Is it from the dispatching WPA?

• Or from the receiving WPA?

Discuss.

Answer

• Level of impact on the receiving WPA

– Transport and amenity

– Availability of capacity

+• Reliance of the exporting WPA strategy on

that movement.

Identifying strategic partners

• How might this be assessed?

• What are neighbours thinking?

» Check Waste Plans

» Check AMRs

» Ask them!

Action Flow Chart for DTC Contact

Contact

Initiated

1. Ok (‘no

impediment’ to

receipt of imports)

2. Ok for now but

capacity limited &

replacement

possible subject to

…

3. Ok for now but

insufficient capacity

over plan period &

no further expected

4. ‘No’ further

capacity available

No Response

received

If critical to planning

strategy double

check AMR, Plan &

any other info.

3 attempts to

contact:

1. Letter

2. Phone call

3. Email

Record response No

further action

required

Prepare and agree

Statement of

Cooperation with

view to agree

Position Statement

Check capacity data

sources in consent.

Cross check with

Plan & AMR.

If position confirmed

review plan strategy

to make up shortfall Unable to confirm

data.

Example: Export of hazardous waste

ASK RECEIVING WPAs WHAT

THRESHOLD THEY WOULD

CONSIDER REASONABLE??

Example: Export of hazardous waste

DTC contact

initiated with

receiving

WPA

Q1: Is the amount being exported

into a single WPA area in excess of

100 tonnes pa?

Q2: Is the waste going to landfill?

Q3: Is the proportion of waste

managed at a single facility > 25%

of the total being from the WPA?

No DTC

contact

initiated with

receiving

WPA

Yes

No

Yes

Yes

No

Caveat: WDI health warning

WDI data should not to be used uncritically as:

• Not comprehensive dataset - does not include

movements to EfW.

• Movements vary from year to year.

• High level WPA numbers may not capture detail e.g.

Surrey, Epsom/Ewell + R&B.

• Some operators still do not attribute e.g. H&F

• Prone to errors – Harrow and Barrow!

The Duty to Cooperate-A PINS Perspective

Brian Cook Senior Planning Inspector

Duty to Cooperate- A PINS Perspective

Overview

• The Zurich Assurance judgement and some general principles that flow from it

• How does this affect what the Inspector looks for?

• Some waste-specific matters

• A couple of examples of the issue

• Questions

Duty to Cooperate- A PINS Perspective

Zurich Assurance Ltd v Winchester CC & South Downs NPA [2014] EWHC 758 (Admin)- s33A

• A housing challenge under s113 but ground 2 was about the DTC.

• See paragraphs 107 to 123; they are quite readable!

• The ‘whats’: “maximising effectiveness”; engaging “constructively, actively and on an ongoing basis”; “strategic matter”.

• His interpretation was that how the LPA goes about doing these or deciding what is a strategic matter is a matter for their judgement.

• In the case of decisions to be taken to meet the DTC, that a substantial margin of discretion should be allowed by the court.

Duty to Cooperate- A PINS Perspective

Zurich Assurance Ltd v Winchester CC & South Downs NPA [2014] EWHC 758 (Admin)-s20

• This is what the Inspector has to do.

• “would be reasonable to conclude” that the LPA had met the DTC.

• Any s113 challenge would be limited to a consideration of whether the Inspector’s conclusion was reasonable.

• Good news then for both LPAs and Inspectors since the courts do not generally interfere in matters of judgement. If decisions are rational they should survive any challenge.

Duty to Cooperate- A PINS Perspective

One warning though

• The ‘persons’ with whom you must engage are set out in the 2012 Regs.

• These have been amended once with Local Nature Partnerships added.

• So, check the latest Regs!

Duty to Cooperate- A PINS Perspective

What is the Inspector looking for?

• Documentation, documentation, documentation!

• The DTC is closely linked with the ‘effective’ soundness test.

• In the main we respond to representations rather than look for problems.

• We are generally sceptical of representations that there has been a failure to meet the DTC. Being unhappy with the outcome of the DTC process does not necessarily mean the process was flawed.

• We will wish to explore that represention either at an exploratory meeting if it looks to have substance or at the examination hearings if it is really a soundness issue.

Duty to Cooperate- A PINS Perspective

Specifically for Waste Plans

• What did Regional Strategies do for us?

• The heavy lifting on waste data and apportionments and the pattern of waste management facilities to deal with it.

• Paragraphs 2 and 3 of the consultation draft revised PPS10 require this to be done at WPA level.

• In particular 2nd bullet of paragraph 2 and bullets 3, 4 and 5 (explicitly) of paragraph 3 mean through the DTC.

Duty to Cooperate- A PINS Perspective

Issues for the DTC process

• How are different waste streams managed in your wider area?

• Will those patterns continue or does a new pattern need to be planned for?

• What are others doing about that?

• Is strategic capacity, like landfill, running down and if so where is the replacement going to be and how will that be determined?

• Are officer groupings and broad agreements (if reached) matched at political level?

Duty to Cooperate- A PINS Perspective

Two specific examples

• Low level and very low level radioactive waste arising from decommissioning; understand your facility’s place in its estate and the NDA’s strategy.

• Green Belt. If proposing sites in the GB in two-tier areas, is the District Council committed to the necessary boundary review?

Meeting the Duty in Hampshire

Presentation for Waste Plans and the Duty PAS event

by Hampshire County Council

Lisa Kirby – Project Manager (Planning Policy)

11 September 2014

The presentation

• When we considered the duty

• How we did it

• Key issues considered

• Who

• How this was considered at examination

• Lessons learnt

• Consideration post adoption

When….• The Hampshire Minerals & Waste Plan (HMWP) had

already been submitted by the time the duty came in

• Considered pre- examination (April – May 2012)

• Reviewed mid- examination (February 2013)

How….• Partnership working

• Vary methods of engagement documented – phone, written, letters,

position statement, meetings, engagement

• Prepared document on collaborative working documenting:

– Main areas where we sought to work collaboratively with other planning

authorities and organisations

– The key issues considered

– Who was engaged and why

– How and when this took place

– How this influenced policy development

– Examples of correspondences on key issues

How….Consultee How engaged When Issues engaged Why Key and notable

actions

East

Hampshire

DC

• Meetings

• Written correspondences

• Development Plans Group

• HCC / LPA updates

27/03/2009

1/10/2010

29/07/2011

12/12/2012

29/01/2013

14/03/2013

• Vision and spatial

strategy

• Safeguarding

• Local land won

aggregate

• Silica sand

• Location of waste

management uses

• So vision / spatial

strategy would take

into account any

planned

development

• Due to resources

safeguarding issues /

requirements

• Due to location of

potential minerals

and waste

safeguarded sites

• Due to potential

location of waste

sites

• Vision took into

account planned

development in

EHDC

• Recognition that

mineral resource

safeguarding would

not impede

development of

Eco-town

• Development of

policies

• Inclusion of

minerals or waste

infrastructure on

safeguarding list

• Eco town

partnership to

consider

safeguarding issues

through

Masterplanning

Key issues• Partnership working

• All issues relating to plan policies considered

• Highlight how discussions had influenced policy

development

• Demonstrated how constructive, active and

ongoing engagement was achieved

• Prioritised some issues due to importance

– minerals safeguarding

– land won aggregates and sites

– wharves and rail depots

– waste sites

Who….• Hampshire’s District and Boroughs

• Adjoining LPAs and MWPAs and other MWPAs

Statutory consultees (EA, NE, EH)

• Aggregate working party

• SEWAG

• Public sector: PCTs

• Minerals and waste industry (including trade

organisations)

• Port operators

• Other interested parties

Consideration at examination• Record of collaborative working submitted in advance of examination

• Question asked by Inspector:

‘Have the Hampshire Authorities carried out the duty to co-operate in the

preparation of the Plan (Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004 (as

amended), Section 33A)? How has this duty been fulfilled?’

• Only industry questioned the authorities consideration of the duty

Consideration at examination

• Inspectors Report:

‘I conclude that the Hampshire Authorities have worked collaboratively with other

authorities and bodies and have co-operated effectively through a continuous period of

engagement. The Local Planning Authorities have fulfilled the duty to co-operate with

regard to the Hampshire Minerals and Waste Plan’.

Lessons learnt• Consider at all stages in the process and document

• Target key issues of importance of the plan and set out why, how and

what measures you took to engage - highlight if you set thresholds for

engagement

• Explore all avenues to negotiate out any differences If this cannot be

achieved make sure it is clearly documented

• Documenting helps to remind officers about the evolution of policies

Consideration post adoption• Process now at basis of all planning policy work post adoption

– DtC responses to other MWPAs

– Response to MCA consultations

– Co-ordinated data sharing and analysis (e.g. SEWPAG)

– LAA

• Involvement in working groups

• Will be imbedded in the through preparation of SPGs planned

Waste and the Duty to Cooperate

Rob Murfin

Director, Planning Officers Society

Head of Planning, Derbyshire County Council

or

“Waste Planning -

is it still about the same things?”

Rob Murfin

Director, Planning Officers Society

Head of Planning, Derbyshire County Council

Introduction

Todays Aims -

• Wider DtC meltdown context (last week)*

• Not academic analysis on DtC

• Not legal or “its not a Duty to Agree” review

• WPAs/LPAs navigating DtC and related growth

issues

*15 years

Not academic – but be clear about waste

planning

“On the Method of Theoretical Physics” the Herbert

Spencer Lecture, Oxford, 10/06/1933

Popularised Einstein’s much-quoted –

“everything should be as simple as

possible, but not simpler”

Current Context -

• Post 2011 made housing like waste

• WPA’s required to provide sufficient opportunities to

meet identified needs

• Objectively assessed needs vs constraint based

“harm” planning (DtC/5 yr smokescreen)

Topical Key messages -

• Consumption vs operational network WMH thinking

• Its economic development AND economic

infrastructure

Nuts and Bolts of Waste DtC

• Range of objective approaches needed

• Peer review/critical friend useful

• Link with growth agenda and political buy in

• Set out DtC assumptions unambiguously

• Waste commonly leapfrogs WPA’s but “towards

total capacity for total waste streams” must be

assumption #1.

#1 “Strategic working” DtC

• Historic work via RTABS on cross border

movements/ strategic facilities.

• Key requirement in PPS10/RSS

• Since RSS abolition majority WPA’s in informal

“RTABy” arrangements

• PINS accept as import step in DTC

East Midlands Strategic DtC

• Post-RTAB group - East Midlands Strategic Waste

Advisory Group (EMSWAG)

• Strong links with West Midlands Resource Technical

Advisory Body (WMRTAB)

I. Waste plan methodology

II. Strategic sites identification

III. Major cross border movements

IV. “Nominal Waste Capacity Model Lite” (with EA).

Enough cooperation?

• Allows WPA’s to engage on waste data methodologies

(trad. bugbears of double count etc)

• Benefits – consistency & technical understanding

• DtC “tick”

• But not sufficient - no political buy in, no agreement

– just passive audit

*Single Regional Strategy

– maybe (political, statutory, mass balance + economics)

#2 Scoping tier below strategic data

• Don’t use ad-hoc knowledge

• Need detailed scope of cross border

movements.

• Movements constantly move - time series is

key - PPG10/PPS10 - “significant and

durable”

Start with

Environment Agency Waste Data Interrogator

Benefits…

• Tool widely used by WPAs

• It is updated – progressively since 2006

• Framework data position – all areas can be

compared without further primary research.

• You can do DtC “to people”

• Get EA to check you have used properly –

(some examples of misuse)

IMPORTS to DERBYSHIRE (tpa)

Nottinghamshire 107,424

Other East Midlands (not codeable) 90,205

Lancashire 40,844

Sheffield 36,986

Leicestershire 35,566

North East (nc) 35,000

London (nc) 27,156

Nottingham 21,563

Yorks and Humber (nc) 11,315

South Yorkshire (nc) 9,213

Lincolnshire 7,586

Solihull 7,431

Scotland 6,091

Middlesbrough 4,916

Northern Ireland 4,500

Redcar and Cleveland 4,396

Leeds 4,014

Doncaster 3,891

Slough 3,644

Rotherham 3,315

Northamptonshire 3,194

West Midlands (nc) 2,751

Wales (nc) 2,600

Bristol 2,488

Norfolk 2,330

Cheshire East 2,126

Cambridgeshire 1,934

Cheshire (nc) 1,811

Wiltshire 1,697

Oxfordshire 1,605

Kent 1,558

Sandwell 1,461

Warwickshire 1,446

Shropshire 1,444

County Durham 1,404

North East

Lincolnshire 1,263

Swansea 1,256

Cheshire West and

Chester 1,251

Merseyside (nc) 1,148

Northumberland 1,112

Milton Keynes 1,075

Newcastle upon Tyne 1,038

Peterborough 1,035

WPA not codeable 606,543

Total 1,110,626

Basic Interrogator Info..

• Significant proportion “not codeable”

• Waste where origin > destination is unclear

• Due to discrepancy in returns or “milk rounds”

• Amount of un-codeable waste within EA datasets

decreasing

• Improvement overall picture but good enough?

Next Steps

• Imports vs exports shows Derbyshire imports more (1.1

mt) than it exports (930 kt)

• Exports still important – not landfill/single approach

• Contacted WPA’s receiving 1,000 tonnes+ waste to

identify and agree a number of key questions.

• 1,000t limit was used to determine a “strategic”

movement relationship (Used by NCC and found sound)

• Contacted via WPA letter and telephone call

• Established availability into plan period.

• Additional focus - strategic sites within 50 miles

• Additional private sector discussion

• (No response received identified any reason why the

capacity will not continue to be available.)

• Full details of all attempts/responses contained within

the waste data evidence base

• Null response means question about capacity

assumption to be reflected in gap analysis

A word for Counties (DtC with yourself)

• NPPF “in two tier areas County and District councils

should cooperate with each other”

• Historic District resistance to all waste development and

argument of negative economic impact

(MS Headquarters scenario)

• Some districts DtC “no sites suitable or no need”

• Let them decide (light, any or none)

• However; change – econometrics, employment land

and restructuring.

Learning from the Housing DtC fail

- the perfect storm

LEPS and growth/economic change

…(more DtC with yourself)

Basic Waste DtC approach risks missing out -

• Above trend economic growth in adjoining areas

• Government/HCA drive for housing growth

• Changes to waste management from technology

advances, market segmentation and market

opportunity from new legislation and the WMH

LEPs - Anything to do with Waste Planning?

> FSB / LPA view of this?

STRATEGIC ECONOMIC PLAN

“By 2023 we will”

• Deliver 55,000 new jobs in the private sector

• Accelerate delivery of 77,000 new homes

• Increase our business base

• Share benefits of growth across communities

Economics

• Paradigm shift in data needed. As much effort as

on those flood risk assessments?

• Reasonable to ask objectors (including other

LPAs) to at least try to quantify alleged negative

economic impact of development

– it is easier to say than do

Building block initial suggestions..

• Population & Household projections

• Employment/Econometric forecasts

• LEP SEP job/housing lift

• Implications for infrastructure of potential strategic

mixed use sites

• Understand objective need, not just expressed

demand

The Future of

PLACES

LATENT

DEMAND

EXPRESSED

DEMAND

GROWTH

ASPIRATION

FUTURE

WASTE

KIT?

Strategic Spatial Statements of

Cooperation

• Get involved in the process

• You may have to push hard

• Get waste accepted as economic growth,

infrastructure and resilience issue

• Reflect evidence in the waste plan approach

• Use as another DtC vehicle

Prepare document on collaborative

working -

– Areas of collaborative working with other WPAs/LPAs

and other organisations

– Why these were engaged

– Key issues considered

– How and when this took place

– How this influenced policy development

– Examples of correspondences on key issues

Future DtC Issues?

• Still on-going shift from “destructive collection

& disposal”

• Even further segmentation – see EA state of

nation reports

• Links to other environmental drivers – e.g.

nitrate loading and agricultural wastes.

• Stronger growth link (enabler and component).

SWAG group within LEP/CA to capture

economic importance?

Main Conclusions/Lessons

• Consider at all stages of plan and document

• Relationship management!

• Documenting helps clarify evolution of policies

• Clarity of DtC assumptions, esp thresholds

• Target key issues and set out why, how and what

measures you took to engage

• Political buy in / briefing – new emphasis

• Respond via gap analysis

• Understanding economics and growth

Meeting the challenge

Managing the Politics

• Explain the issues

• Address fears

– Visits to modern facilities

– Benefits of waste management

• Avoid elections!

• All reasonable measures

• Manage your own expectations!

Tools available

• Statements of common ground;

• Memoranda of understanding;

• Duty to Cooperate Statement

Again, proving you have done all you can…

Memoranda of Understanding

• Useful to demonstrate wider cooperation

within a ‘region’ or ‘sub-region’

• May be produced by TABs e.g. SEWPAG

• Set out common issues that need addressing

(see abolished RSS!)

• Check appropriate spatial geographies - are

historical ones still relevant?

Statements of Common Ground

• For one to exist there has to have been

cooperation of some kind!

• What’s agreed

• What’s not agreed (N.B. Its not a Duty to agree!)

Duty to Cooperate Statements – a word

from our sponsor

• Whatever is decided it will be important to

provide a written explanation to PINs of:

What the strategic issues are

What has been done jointly with which partners to

address them;

Why; and

What the outcome of this was.See more at: http://www.pas.gov.uk/web/pas-test-site/strategicplanning/-

/journal_content/56/332612/3603707/ARTICLE#sthash.7x530GcQ.dup

.

Duty to Cooperate Statements

• Evidence base that demonstrates compliance

• Published with the Plan at Reg 19 stage

• What is proportionate?

• Examples….

What Does One Look like?Consultee How engaged When Issues engaged Why Key and notable

actions

East

Hampshire

DC

• Meetings

• Written correspondences

• Development Plans Group

• HCC / LPA updates

27/03/2009

1/10/2010

29/07/2011

12/12/2012

29/01/2013

14/03/2013

• Vision and spatial

strategy

• Safeguarding

• Local land won

aggregate

• Silica sand

• Location of waste

management

uses

• So vision / spatial

strategy would

take into account

any planned

development

• Due to resources

safeguarding

issues /

requirements

• Due to location of

potential minerals

and waste

safeguarded sites

• Due to potential

location of waste

sites

• Vision took into

account planned

development in

EHDC

• Recognition that

mineral resource

safeguarding

would not impede

development of

Eco-town

• Development of

policies

• Inclusion of

minerals or waste

infrastructure on

safeguarding list

• Eco town

partnership to

consider

safeguarding

issues through

Masterplanning

2012

East Sussex, South Downs and Brighton &

Hove Waste and Minerals Plan…

• Original statement

• 12 Pages

– “the Authorities evidence of having cooperated to plan for issues with

cross-boundary impacts within the Waste and Minerals Plan.”

• Representations received due to proposed export to LF

• Response to Inspector’s request

– 146 pages

– Included additional details and considered implications arising from the

Inspector’s conclusions on the North London Waste Plan.

• Inspector’s conclusions

– SEWPAG provides continuity of well-established collaboration

– And a fundamental co-operation between bodies engaged in planning

at a strategic level

– Noted specific liaison with other Waste Planning Authorities within and

beyond the south-east

2013

West Sussex Waste Local Plan …

• Original Statement

– 40 pages

– Set out compliance with the DtC “for those issues which have an

impact beyond the boundaries of the plan area.”

– And, arrangements in place to ensure ongoing engagement – “will be

updated as new information becomes available.”

• Representations

– Provision for non-inert landfill inadequate - unreasonable reliance on

capacity in other areas assumed (Subsequently accepted that rep

related to soundness not a failure to co-operate)

– Potential non-inert landfill in- County capacity ignored

• Inspector’s conclusions

– “ample evidence of the steps to which the Authorities have gone to

engage constructively, actively and on an ongoing basis”

– active members of the South East Waste Planning Advisory Group

(SEWPAG)

2014

Devon Waste Core Strategy…

• Original Statement - 21 Pages

• Contents:

– 1.Introduction

– 2.The Devon Context

– 3.Cooperation with Greater Devon Waste Planning Authorities

– 4.Cooperation with Waste Planning Authorities Outside Greater Devon

– 5.Cooperation with Devon’s District Planning Authorities

– 6.Cooperation with Other Relevant Organisations

– Appendix A - Duty to Cooperate Bodies

– Appendix B - Meetings with Greater Devon and Adjoining WPAs

– Appendix C - Minutes of Meeting with Plymouth City Council (PCC)

• 43 Page Addendum in light of representation from PCC

– PCC raised an objection on the grounds that the duty to cooperate has not

been fulfilled.

» Watch this space…….

A word about LEPs

• A prescribed body that must be engaged

• Any engagement in waste plans??

• Strategic Economic Plans

• Growth Deals

– E.g. SELEP SEP and Growth Deal

• Waste, circular economy - ‘no results found’

• Not to be ignored (but they may ignore you!)

Is the DtC hurdle getting higher?

PAS Lessons Learned – 2014 Update‘Doing Your Duty’, PAS, 2014 update:http://www.pas.gov.uk/documents/332612/6289673/Doing+your+duty+updatev3/cad06b72-5b67-4b38-9732-

6600dfa291f9

The process of cooperation

• The duty is about good strategic planning based on co-operation

• The onus is on the submitting authority to demonstrate effective

cooperation

• Start discussions early and carry on

• Decisions need to reflect the evidence

• Be rigorous, pro-active and persistent

• Engagement needs to be constructive

• Ensure partnership arrangements are fit for purpose

• Work with new partnerships in strategic planning

• The plan is tested on how it was prepared – not future arrangements

PAS Lessons Learned – 2014 Update

Evidence

• Plans should reflect joint working and cooperation to address

larger than local issues

• Plans need to reflect Housing Market Assessments and

contribute to the objectively assessed needs of the wider

market area (apply to waste management)

• Have an audit trail of cooperation to demonstrate outcomes

Other lessons

• There is a need for corporate and member support and

resourcing

• Identify strategic priorities

Lessons learnt - Hampshire• Consider at all stages in the process and document

• Target key issues of importance of the plan and set out why,

how and what measures you took to engage - highlight if you

set thresholds for engagement

• Explore all avenues to negotiate out any differences If this

cannot be achieved make sure it is clearly documented

• Documenting helps to remind officers about the evolution of

policies

Track Record

26 waste plans submitted post

implementation of the DtC with just

1 found unsound! (and 1 withdrawn)

Factors Affecting DtC in Future

• Tougher test of ongoing engagement??

• Current system – tweaked not torn up

• Increasing role of LEPs in planning

• More unitary authorities?

• Longer distance waste movements as waste

becomes logistics exercise

• Increasing weight of Strategic Economic Growth

Plans

DtC as an ongoing Activity

• The aim is to encourage positive, continuous partnership

working on issues that go beyond a single local planning

authority’s area.

• All local planning authorities must give details of what

action they have taken to comply with the duty in their local

Authority Monitoring Reports at least once a year.

• This should include:

details of the actions to both secure the effective

cooperation of others ;and

respond constructively to requests for cooperation.

It should also highlight the outcomes of cooperation.

National Planning Practice Guidance

Final word from Citizen’s Advice

• “Many people find it useful to first speak to their neighbour. This

gives the best chance of resolving the dispute and remaining on

good terms. You could invite your neighbour for a coffee and a chat

rather than discussing the issue on the doorstep.

• If you think that one or both of you will get angry or upset during a

meeting, it may be helpful to write a letter. It is useful to keep a copy

of any letter sent.

• Whichever way you chose to contact you neighbour make sure that

you state your case simply and clearly. Avoid being emotional. Be

polite even if you are frustrated, angry or upset. Stick to the facts.”

Existing Strategic Planning/Duty

materials

• A simple guide to strategic planning and the

duty to co-operate

• Ten Golden Rules for Effective Strategic

Planning

• Making Strategic Planning Happen

• Case study: East Sussex

• Case Study: Coastal West Sussex

• NuLeAF Report on DtC & radioactive waste

Forthcoming PAS activity

• Duty to co-operate case study

• Duty to co-operate events

• Duty to co-operate support

– Peer review health check (half day)

– In house support (longer, more in depth)

Are you ready to do your duty

and cooperate?

London

Bristol

Birmingham

Leeds

London

14 October

23 October

6 November

13 November

18 November