“What appears be missing is an explanation of the (new settlement) selection process”

At Tuesday's scrutiny committee we heard from the authors of a report about the delivery of the Uttlesford Local Plan and those charged (*) with delivering it. I've added some of my own thoughts and concerns.

The Report about the emerging Uttlesford Local Plan can be read here. It was prepared at my request to inform Tuesday's meeting of the scrutiny committee called to assess whether the council was going about preparing a fresh Local Plan correctly. .

The report by Geoff Salter BA MRTPI of Intelligent Plans, working for the Planning Advisory Service, contains a lot of important advice and some key messages:

• "It appears to me there are some significant gaps in the published evidence."
• "Not consulting on a preferred option may take many residents by surprise, given statements in the Issues and Options Plan that clearly indicate that an additional round of consultation would occur before .. the pre-submission consultation."
• On Duty to Cooperate (with neighbouring councils), this must be demonstrated with clear evidence or a Local Plan's "Examination will proceed no further as there would be little point assessing a plan when the process by which it has been produced is inherently flawed…..Clearly there are some gaps.."
• "What appears to be missing is an explanation of the (housing site) selection process."

Members of the scrutiny committee spend around two hours examining the report and questioning officers (mainly) and Cllr Susan Barker, the accountable portfolio holder. I will not provide a narrative here as that should be contained in the minutes when they are published. Needless to say, it is now obvious that the draft plan was nowhere near ready for publication and consultation in November. Concern was expressed that it was pulled (paused) without warning, and that alarm bells had not been rung much earlier, say by summer 2016. I remain concerned that elected Members had been raising concerns about the process throughout last year, yet these had been brushed aside. I don't feel we have yet received adequate assurance that a realistic project plan will now be produced and that there will be no more unexpected crashes.

Dropping the Preferred Options public consultation at a meeting on 27 January 2016 was a major mistake, and will now been reinstated. As a member of the Planning Policy Working Group when this decision was almost sneaked through, I supported a call for more evidence that that the public consultation should be dropped; but that was refused a vote by the chairman of the meeting. There will be further blunders unless people start to listen more to each other.

Concerned was raised about the failure to cooperate properly with neighbouring planning authorities such as Braintree and Cambridge/South Cambs. Of course, it takes two to tango. However, it is now clear that there was no effective dialogue with the Cambridge authorities beyond Uttlesford's northern boundary about a proposal for a new settlement near Great Chesterford. It seems that Cambridge said "let's talk". Uttlesford didn't show enthusiasm. Nor is there an agreement with Braintree on how a new settlement across our common district boundary can be made to work for both districts. You can't have a credible Local Plan without having done all one's homework.

Finally, there is the selection process for new settlements. Our consultant couldn't work out the council's methodology. Had the draft plan been published for decision at the cancelled council meeting on November 8th last year, it would have remained a mystery to most councillors including me. You can't make decisions without adequate evidence, and we still don't have that evidence, as Mr Salter has reminded us.

Nine days ago at a Planning Policy Working Group meeting it was decided to set up a Leaders' Forum comprising councillors Susan Barker, John Lodge, Howard Rolfe and me. I haven't yet attended a meeting, though one was held last Friday. In my opinion, this group has been set up to oversee the continuing process; to talk with officers to seek assurance that (i) there is a project plan, (ii) that it is credible and makes sense, (iii) that there are the resources and skills in place to deliver it, (iii) that there is meaningful and transparent dialogue with the public and all councillors before decisions are made.

There is a concern among councillors and members of the public that this forum will be hatching up behind closed doors proposals such as where new housing should be located and then telling planning officers what to put forward for approval. Not on my watch!

(*) Those ultimately responsible are elected cabinet members. Curiously the people who appeared to be "in the dock" on Tuesday were all non-elected officers. UDC continues to have an issue with accountability and leadership.