|
LOCAL DEVELOPMENT FRAMEWORK
PUBLIC EXAMINATION OF THE CORE STRATEGY
The public examination has now
ended, having taken the best part of three weeks. The
two Planning Inspectors – Alan Foster and David
Vickery – divided the hearings into a number of
subject areas (or “Matters”) and one or other led each
of the sessions.
At the opening session the Inspectors explained that
this was a new procedure unlike the public inquiries
for previous local plans, or planning appeals. They
were at pains to stress that the public examination
was just one part of a process which started when HDC
submitted the Core Strategy to the Secretary of State,
and ended when the Inspectors issued their binding
report.
HDC is one of the first local authorities to embark
upon the process and it was evident there was a steep
learning curve for everyone involved. For example, the
Inspectors were clearly disappointed that objectors
had not tried harder to resolve issues amongst
themselves and with the Council in the period leading
up to the hearings, despite being encouraged to do so
by the Inspectors at their Pre-Examination meeting in
May.
If there is a single factor that makes the new process
different to what has gone before it is that the
Inspectors’ duty is to test the soundness of the
Council’s strategy against a prescribed list of “Tests
of Soundness”. The assumption is that the strategy is
sound unless evidence can be placed before the
Inspectors that it is unsound. Whilst the Inspectors
can require changes to be made to the Core Strategy it
seems these can only be relatively minor because they
cannot make changes which may disadvantage third
parties. In other words, they cannot say the Council
should replace plans for development south of
Broadbridge Heath with a specific new location. If
they thought that the Council’s proposals were unsound
in respect of such a key issue they would have to
reject the Core Strategy as a whole. It is also
possible that the Inspectors might decide to reject
the strategy on the grounds that there were too many
less serious problems, what was referred to at the
hearings as ‘death by a thousand cuts’. The first two
authorities to have their plans tested under the new
procedure both had them rejected by the Inspectors. It
seemed that our Inspectors were conscious of the waste
of resources, and the unhelpful planning environment,
that such a course involved and they were trying to be
pragmatic and encourage an agreed resolution of issues
where that was possible.
During the consultation stage which followed the
submission of the Core Strategy the Horsham Society
made a number of detailed observations, both
objections and comments in support, on those parts of
the document affecting the town. We also submitted
additional Statements on five of the Matters
identified by the Inspectors (these were circulated at
the time and are available on our web site). We were
represented at four of the hearings. I attended those
on development strategy and level of housing
provision, sustainable development principles, and
infrastructure and community facilities/services. Ian
Dockreay represented us at the hearing on the proposed
development west of Horsham.
Each hearing followed a similar format with the
objectors relating to the matter under review sitting
around a table (or the council chamber) and the
Inspector leading the discussion. The purpose of the
hearings was to enable the Inspectors to better
understand the issues, not for individual objectors to
restate their objections. These were taken as read,
and the Inspectors clearly had carefully read them all
in advance. The Inspectors produced an agenda for each
session setting out the points they wished to cover
and usually invited the most relevant objector to
introduce each item.
At the risk of being simplistic or over cynical
discussions sometimes seemed to be polarised between
representatives of the developers with land in the two
strategic locations supporting the Core Strategy and
emphasising its deliverability, and those representing
land owners and developers with other sites (such as
in Billingshurst and Southwater) arguing that the
stipulated number of new homes was either
insufficient, or could not be delivered in time, and
therefore further land should be identified for
development.
The sessions were business-like without being over
formal and both Inspectors were adept at ensuring that
everybody had an opportunity to make the points that
they wished to. Whether or not we like the eventual
outcome we certainly had a fair hearing within the new
rules of the game.
With the end of the public examination the opportunity
for objectors to initiate new evidence has closed,
although the Inspectors can seek further clarification
of the evidence already given if they wish. The
Inspectors’ report is expected in the New Year.
John Steele
29 September 2006
Back to main LDF page8
|
