The District Council’s “Local Development Framework” looks like being further delayed.
The council website explains:
In light of the recent High Court Ruling Save Historic Newmarket v. Forest Heath District Council, Rochford District Council has requested that the issuing of a decision on the soundness of the Core Strategy be delayed to enable the Council undertake a review of the Core Strategy Sustainability Appraisal. The Planning Inspectorate has accepted this request.
So the council is basically asking for more time to improve its documents because of a recent High Court case. You can see more about this case on Forest Heath District Council’s website:
This was a challenge under s.113 of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004 to the Forest Heath Core Strategy, which was adopted in May 2010. It focused on the policies in the Core Strategy allocating a 1,200 dwelling urban extension in north-east Newmarket on land owned by the Earl of Derby. The claimants, a consortium of national and international horseracing interests, opposed the urban extension on the basis that it would seriously undermine Newmarket?s status as a world class centre of racing excellence.
.
The primary ground of the challenge was that the Core Strategy had been adopted in breach of the requirements of Directive 2001/42/EC on the assessments of the effects of certain plans and programmes on the environment (?the SEA Directive?), in particular the duty for the ?environmental report? accompanying a draft plan or programme to explain what reasonable alternatives to the proposed policies have been considered and why they have been rejected. The case was one of the first in the English courts to consider the requirements of the SEA Directive.
.
Following a two-day hearing in the High Court, Collins J allowed the claim, holding that:
.1) For there to be compliance with Article 5 of the SEA Directive, the public must be presented with an accurate picture of what reasonable alternatives there were to the proposed policies and why they were not considered to the best option.
.
2) Equally, the environmental report and the draft plan must operate together, so that consultees can consider each in the light of the other.
.
3) In an iterative plan-making process, it is not inconsistent with the SEA Directive for alternatives to the proposed policies to be ruled out prior to the publication of the final draft plan, but if that does happen the environmental report accompanying the draft plan must refer to, summarise or repeat the reasons that were given for rejecting the alternatives at the time when they were ruled out and those reasons must still be valid.
.
4) These principles were not followed in the present case. It was not possible from the environmental report accompanying the draft plan for the public to know what were the reasons for rejecting any alternatives to the urban extension or to the amount of development proposed.
.
5) A plan or programme adopted contrary to the SEA Directive was bound to be quashed regardless of whether any prejudice was caused to the particular claimant(s).
.
Accordingly, the policies in the Core Strategy relating to the urban extension were quashed.
The essence of this is: When preparing plans, councils must show to the public an accurate picture of what reasonable alternatives there were to the proposed policies and why they were not considered to the best option. Has this happened in our district?
.
Interesting! Am I missing something here? The absense of proper consideration of the alternatives has long been an argument promoted by opponents of the current proposals. Cllr John Mason, in particular, I think has made this point strongly.
So why are RDC looking to review their own proposals at this stage?
Is it an admission that the council has failed to consider alternatives?
What will happen if the council does agree with objectors – will there been yet more consultations?
Will the council ever complete the analysis of the consultation undertaken last March (2010)?
Does the term “farce” apply here?
Admin – Can you provide any background?
Chris
Does this mean that in respect of the Locations (as opposed to the actual Sites in the Allocations of Sites DPD – April 2010) put forward in the Core Strategy the Council now has to explain, in material planning terms,why those Locations were chosen over other potential Locations?
I can’t recall seeing any alternatives being considered in the published CS.
But as you were on the LDF Sub Committee, and this is all public information, could you post the alternatives that the LDF Sub actually looked at but were rejected?
I am not asking you for the reasons, because that must be explained now because of the Court Judgement Precedent,but just for the aqlternative Locations. Hoping, of course, that there were alternatives, because if there were not then how can the Council explain why the ones put forward were chosen over others?
Rumoured that the CS will not be in place now until November 2011. Has the Council come up with an new set of dates yet?
John
It’s a fair question John, but I’m afraid my reply is going to be very lame. The LDF Sub-Committee met in private and confidential seesion so I don’t think I can say too much.
We did literally look at other locations (using a minibus) but we didn’t spend hours discussing the merits of each one.
Hi Chris
Don’t you think that the derivation of,probably,the most important policy in our district which will affect us all for several decades should have been an open and transparent process of decisioning?
How can we, you and I, as District Councillors do something about this?
For my part I have written to Shaun Scrutton asking the same questions as I asked of you.
Shouldn’t the Officers Report accompanying the Executive Decision you blogged about have included an open discussion in the light of a High Court Decision?
I have also asked the Council for the letters behind the Report but have had no reply. I will now request this under the FOI Act.
John