(These are the 'headlines' - the full document is now available at the end of this post...)
"The Inspector has [today published] conclusions on the issue of whether the North London Councils have fulfilled the legal requirement of the Duty to Co-operate under S33A of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004 Act in the preparation of the North London Waste Plan.
"The paper combines Mr Mead’s findings in the note issued on 25 June (paras 1- 20) with those issued today, 31 August (paras 21 - 37)."
North London Waste Plan Examination
The Duty to Co-operate
(i) The consideration of the legal requirement to co-operate in the preparation of the North London Waste Plan (NLWP) is in two stages. The first stage, in a note dated 25 June 2012 (paras 1 to 20 below), has dealt with the legal submissions that, in effect, the North London Councils (the Councils) were absolved of the duty to co-operate with the planning authorities to which waste was exported.
(ii) The second stage is to consider whether co-operation as envisaged by the 2004 Act and the NPPF has been carried out. My overall conclusions are at paras 34 to 37."
(blah, blah)
Overall conclusions
34. Accordingly, I conclude that the NLWP does
not comply with the legal requirements of S33A of the 2004 Act (as amended) in
that there has not been constructive, active and ongoing engagement during the
NLWP’s preparation between the North London Councils and the planning
authorities to which significant quantities of waste are exported.
35. In reaching my conclusion in this case, I
have considered carefully all the representations and have also taken into
account the potentially significant implications of my decision. However, I consider no alternative conclusion
can be reached, especially as it is claimed that there has been no liaison
between the (North London) Councils and
Buckinghamshire County Council, Northamptonshire County Council, the
Bedfordshire Councils, Essex County Council and Hertfordshire County Council, other
than as described above. Therefore, contact
has been scant.
36. The consequence of my conclusion is that the
submitted NLWP is not legally compliant and so I cannot continue any further
with the Examination. The Councils may
choose to receive my report on the Plan which will not deal with any planning
issues and, following Section 20(7B) of the 2004 Act as inserted by Section 112
of the Localism Act 2011, will recommend non adoption of the Plan.
37. Alternatively, the Councils may choose to
withdraw the Plan from submission and so return to the stage of preparation
(S33A(3)(a) of the 2004 Act). Were the
Councils to follow this latter route they may seek to remedy any defects which
have been identified. In my opinion,
this would include a continuation of the inter-regional communications via the
London RTAB, but also involving meeting the RTABs, or their equivalents, of
other relevant regions. In addition, a
dialogue should be initiated with those planning authorities where significant
quantities of waste are imported from North London to be managed or disposed in
order to establish the acceptability or not of those movements and, if
necessary, explore the degree to which reasonable alternatives exist, aiming to
achieve a positive outcome. A series of
memoranda of understanding could be established with each of the planning
authorities. This process, in turn, may
lead to alterations to the Plan and the need to revisit the Sustainability
Appraisal, but, in my opinion, it would constitute an appropriate level of
co-operation and should enable the duty to co-operate to be fulfilled.
Andrew Mead
Inspector
31 August 2012
THE COMPLETE DOCUMENT NOW FOLLOWS...
2012-08 NLWP
