 |
 |
YOU ARE HERE |
 Article |
|
CURRENT USERS |
|
|
|
 |
|
Observations on Consultation Drafts, PPS 12 And Guide to LDF Preparation
|
- However, concerns have been raised with us as to what will happen to existing SPG. There is an interpretation that where a development plan policy falls away (through replacement by a DPD or the three year cut-off), any SPG which was prepared against that policy will also fall away, and cease to be of effect. The Society hopes that this is incorrect, but clearly it is very important for planning authorities, and we would urge that the matter is considered to ensure that existing SPG will not be at risk. In the event that the interpretation quoted here is correct, then there needs to be a provision in Transitional Regulations saving existing SPG until the planning authority chooses to replace or revise it through an SPD.
- Limited plan review - Under the present system, an authority reviewing its local plan or UDP can specify which aspects of the existing plan are to be reviewed and which are not; and turn away objections which seek to open issues which are not covered by the review, subject to a possible adjudication by the Inspector in relation to specific objections. It is not clear to the Society whether the same will apply under the new system, or whether in fact in preparing their first LDF authorities will have no option but to expose every aspect of current policy to potential challenge. We would welcome clarification and, hopefully, reassurance on this point.
- Transitional arrangements in plan preparation - The Society is concerned and, frankly, confused by the proposed arrangement where a plan being taken forward under the current system has passed first deposit by the commencement date, but has not yet had an Inspector appointed. Paragraph 5.3.2 ii of the draft PPS says that in this situation "the entire plan, including any changes the authority wish to make, will need to be re-consulted upon to allow for objections to be made on the basis that there will be no modification stage".
- We understand that this provision has been made on the advice of ODPM lawyers, the argument being that people who had anticipated the right to object at modification stage will have it withdrawn by the change to a binding Inspector's report, so it needs to be reinstated by requiring re-deposit. However, this does not stand scrutiny. It will offer very little benefit to customers of the plan, because they will already have had the opportunity to object to the second deposit plan, and there are unlikely to be significant proposals by the planning authority to make further changes to the plan. More to the point, the value of the modifications stage is that it enables objections to be made to the changes which the authority proposes in the light of the Inspector's report, which clearly will not apply under the arrangement proposed.
- While the gain to customers from the proposed re-consultation is frankly nebulous, it will create delay at the same time as the Government is urging progress in plan production, and involve further cost. The Society's view is that this will be a deterrent to proceeding on the existing development plan system, causing some authorities to take the view that it would make more sense to abort work under the old law and instead switch to preparing an LDF, but of course on a longer timescale because they will have to begin at the beginning again. We urge the Government to reconsider this provision, which we consider both ill-advised and fruitless.
|
|
|
|
|
Save
Print
Email
Discuss