Shared Intelligence: Research into the Duty to Cooperate by Pinnacle Graphic Design

Shared Intelligence

Research into the Duty to Cooperate June 2015

Index

Executive summary

Introduction

2. Context

Views and concerns regarding the duty

The response to the current PAS offer

The future offer around the duty

Making it happen

Research into the Duty to Cooperate 2

Executive summary This report presents the findings from research with a range of local planning authorities and other PAS stakeholders into the duty to cooperate (the duty). In particular it contains a number of findings around the response to the current PAS offer of support and makes a series of recommendations on how PAS can offer support through a more flexible menu of options in future. The report is structured around the three key lines of enquiry for the research: ●● What views and concerns do authorities have regarding the duty? ●● What response has there been to the current PAS support offer around the duty? ●● What support could PAS offer in future around the duty? The research was commissioned in the context of the number of authorities taking up the PAS intensive support offer, launched in 2013, falling below expectations. Although those who have accessed the support have been very positive about its benefits. The findings are based on 109 semi-structured qualitative interviews undertaken between January and March 2015 with: PAS stakeholders; local planning authority contacts, primarily planning leads; elected members; development industry contacts; and LGA Principal Advisers. Under each of the headings of this executive summary, we present the findings from these different groups, before making recommendations on the future of PAS’ support around the Duty.

Context In March 2012 the government published the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF). Paragraphs 178‑181 of the NPPF go into detail on the requirements of the duty, stating that ‘public bodies have a duty to cooperate on planning issues that cross administrative boundaries, particularly those which relate to the strategic priorities set out in paragraph 156’. This includes ‘the homes and jobs needed in the area’. Cooperation should result ‘in a final position where plans are in place to provide the land and infrastructure necessary to support current and projected future levels of development’. Local planning authorities should demonstrate evidence of this having taken place and plans should provide land and infrastructure to support development requirements across boundaries according to objective needs. In considering Local Plans submitted for examination, Inspectors find it necessary to distinguish between the pass/fail “legal test” and the “soundness test”. Relatively few authorities have failed on the legal test. However, it is often more difficult to demonstrate that the plan is soundly based on effective cooperation with neighbours on strategic matters.

Views and concerns regarding the duty PAS is operating in an environment in which there are very mixed views with regard to the duty, ranging from hostility from some officers who see it as a ‘half measure’ in lieu of effective strategic planning through to those who welcomed it as a welcome alternative to the old “top down” system. Understanding of the duty has significantly increased since its introduction. It is now seen by officers as a “fundamental test”, not a narrow process requirement. However, officers and members still have questions about how to demonstrate compliance in practice in a constantly changing environment. Stakeholders stressed that the way the duty was “dropped in” to the NPPF “at the last moment” (these are the words of one individual but reflect a general view), led to considerable confusion. Political rhetoric about the abolition of regional strategies created the impression that strategic planning had, in effect, been abolished and planning decisions would in future be taken by local authorities.

Research into the Duty to Cooperate 3

In this context, stakeholders argued that many officers initially saw the duty as a narrow process requirement, and so they could “get away with something nominal” in terms of commitment. By the time of the research, however, stakeholders were clear that this perception had largely changed amongst officers – the duty had become recognised as a “pretty fundamental test” by most local planning officers. The stakeholders’ general perception is that a similar change in understanding is occurring with elected members, but at a slower rate, and so there remains an important job for PAS to continue raising general awareness of the duty and its implications. We explored these themes in more detail through the interviews with local planning authorities. Our research suggests that for local authority planners the duty has constituted something of a ‘learning curve’. However, lessons are starting to filter through in part because of PAS’ general dissemination role, particularly in highlighting the lessons and consequences from early failures to meet the duty. Officers now understand both the technical requirements of the duty, in relation to the legal test, and, to a large extent, its strategic/political implications and questions.

For areas which have a history of joint working and a shared vision for growth (or at least an emerging vision), the duty requires little more than a continuation of ‘business as usual’. But for many authorities the duty raises important challenges. The most commonly recognised challenges identified through the research were around ‘agreeing the distribution of housing land with neighbouring authorities’, ‘doing effective cross-boundary strategic planning at a local authority level’ and issues arising from ‘political differences’. Officers recognise that these issues can be highly contentious and need to involve elected members. Political buy-in is therefore crucial. However, broadly speaking, the duty is believed to be less well understood among elected members, particularly – and understandably – those more peripheral to Local Plan development. These challenges around working toward compliance reinforced local planning authorities’ main concerns about the duty: ●● Across different areas, there is confusion about what is expected to pass the soundness test. There remains a need for greater clarity and clearer guidance if authorities are to understand how to meet the duty. ●● In areas where there is no or little history of joint working and/or there are conflicting planning goals, the duty is raising complex questions that are not being answered, or in some cases even being addressed. In some cases, for example, elected members are concerned that cooperation will lead to them having to review or even reverse their previously stated positions e.g. on the nature and scale of development locally. ●● In areas where some authorities are eager about cooperation, but have neighbours that are less keen, the main concern is that there is no way to compel their neighbours to engage meaningfully – as a result, they fear the duty will only create processes without delivering outcomes. Currently, there is no fixed time limit for having new Local Plans in place. ●● In areas where neighbouring authorities are at different stages in relation to their Local Plans, there is confusion about how to demonstrate that cooperation has achieved compliance with the duty. Especially in areas which have little history of cooperation and few structures in place, misaligned timescales can be a significant difficulty. In addition, when authorities have an adopted Local Plan, they are not always as willing to engage in joint evidence because they worry it will contradict their existing targets and cast doubt over their plan

Research into the Duty to Cooperate 4

In such areas, where the duty is raising challenging questions, planning officers by and large do not feel empowered to try to address these questions and elected members are not always committed to making the duty work. It is also worth noting that some local planning officers were flatly hostile to the duty and saw it as an inadequate ‘half-measure’. These comments tended to come from officers who argued that “proper” strategic planning was needed. This was not necessarily a return to the previous regime, but an appeal for more meaningful sub-regional/regional/national strategic planning. In contrast, other officers welcomed the introduction of the duty as an alternative to the old “top down” system which led to conflict between the region and local levels. Elected members involved in the research felt they had a good understanding of the duty. However, there was an acceptance that this understanding was not shared by all the councillors in their authorities and a recognition that some could further develop their understanding of the duty, particularly those who are currently more peripheral to the planning process. In some cases challenges in understanding the duty remain despite councils and PAS offering training (formal and informal) for elected members. Reflecting the difficult political questions that the duty can raise, one councillor suggested to us that members only “choose to take notice if it suits them”. Private sector representatives had mixed views on the extent to which local planning authorities now understand the duty. Consistent with our findings from other research participants, they felt that officers now had a reasonable understanding of the duty and that the legal element (“the process part”) is easier to  meet than the overall soundness test. However, they were less positive on the application of the duty and the understanding that elected members had of it. In some cases, interviewees felt that local authorities are looking for reasons to depress the amount of housing they allocate in their Local Plans and so had no incentive to use the duty as a means of delivering new homes. Generally, they were adamant that political considerations were at the heart of the duty. And while officers often have a better understanding of the duty, in some authorities they are not strong enough to make clear its importance. In particular, it is seen as difficult to justify housing development from neighbouring authorities, which can lead to a “political reluctance” to implement the duty in some areas. Private sector representatives were also concerned about the lack of a meaningful sanction against failing the Local Plan (or not meeting the duty). One interview described how “too many political leaders prefer to leave decisions to the Planning Inspectorate”.

Response to the current PAS offer around the duty Officers who have accessed PAS support, either through its general dissemination offer or through its intensive offer, are very positive about the usefulness, quality and thoroughness of PAS materials and practical support. However, knowledge of the intensive offer amongst planners is limited, and awareness is even more limited beyond PAS’ core audience. Since the introduction of the duty, PAS have had a general dissemination offer that has taken the form of workshops and online resources. The workshops were structured around a series of presentations that were a mixture of high-level briefings and examples from local authorities of the work they were doing around the duty. 148 officers attended the five duty workshops in the autumn of 2014. PAS’ online resources include: slide packs, practice and briefing notes, including one aimed at elected members; case studies; FAQs; templates; and key learning notes from inspectors’ letters. Research into the Duty to Cooperate 5

As well as the general dissemination offer, PAS developed an intensive offer which has evolved over time. The 2014/15 version of the offer was focused on getting individual authorities ‘duty Ready’. As of February 2015, three authorities had taken up the health check and two had taken up the offer of in house support. PAS had also supplied four bespoke packages of work in response to requests for assistance. Virtually all research participants, including those elected members who were of PAS, were very positive about PAS’ general dissemination offer. The website content is seen as thorough, up-to-date and authoritative – planning officers often look to PAS for the latest on the duty, though the level of use varies. Virtually everybody we spoke to were aware of the general information offer on the PAS website, with some looking at it regularly and proactively, and others visiting on a ‘need to find something out’ basis. Areas that have taken up the intensive offer were very positive and, without prompting, described it as very helpful. We probed what made it useful, and were given a number of reasons: ●● The quality of PAS team members, who were seen as knowledgeable and practical. ●● The reliability of their information and advice – people felt that they were getting the most up‑to‑date and reliable information. ●● PAS’ relationship with CLG and other bodies like the Planning Inspectorate. ●● The organisation’s status and link to the LGA means it is welcomed as a critical friend by authorities. It is also worth highlighting that most respondents mentioned the fact that the support from PAS was free. This is important in the current climate of budget cuts but it also de-risks the process in the sense that the officer cannot be accused of wasting money if the support does not give the authority what they expect. There are a number of reasons why the take-up of the intensive support offer has been below expectations: ●● The timing not being right for the authority e.g. because members were not yet on board/up to speed with work on the duty, bringing in PAS would have been difficult. ●● Some areas do not need intensive support. ●● In other areas, the duty does not raise significant questions and/or there are structures and relationships in place to work through whatever questions it does raise. ●● Some authorities may need intensive support, but are not asking for it. This can be because planning officers do not feel empowered to ask for support because the need is strategic and relates to political differences between authorities. It can also be because the authority may not realise it needs support. As one research participant put it, “We thought we were doing everything right. Up until the point we failed.” ●● Some authorities acknowledge that they need support but do not have capacity to ask for it. ●● While PAS has a generally high profile, the intensive support offer is sometimes not recognised or well understood. ●● PAS is often seen as offering technical advice to planners, not strategic/political assistance for leaders and senior officers. The final two bullet points have significant implications for how PAS markets its support around the duty. Backing up these findings, elected members generally see PAS as a technical body that provides technical support to local planning officers. There was little recognition of the intensive support offered by PAS. Development industry respondents were unable to give significant feedback on PAS’ current offer. However, they were supportive of the idea that PAS should do work with elected members.

Research into the Duty to Cooperate 6

The future PAS support offer The report recommends that PAS continues to provide a general dissemination service and replaces the current offer with a menu of support that can be tailored to specific needs. We think there is scope for PAS to utilise the goodwill that people feel toward it in order to reach out, in a more systematic and proactive way, to elected members and senior officers. The report recommends that the support that PAS provides on the ground should: ●● Be clearly and strongly focused on strategic cross-boundary planning. ●● Bring together groups of authorities where possible. ●● Be closely tailored to their needs. ●● Engage senior managers, leaders and portfolio holders. ●● Be ongoing, at a pace and regularity agreed between the authorities and PAS. The report also makes recommendations for delivering a high level of take-up from the menu of support in future: ●● Link with the LGA’s broader offer. ●● Stress that you are offering a free, bespoke and ongoing service. ●● Re-brand the offer – focus on outcomes – and market beyond the planners. ●● Take the offer of support on the road. ●● Target the offer – with input from CLG and LGA. ●● Develop a pool of evangelists. ●● Further discuss the menu – with a group of officers and members identified through this research. In relation to the final bullet point, the research also identifies a group of officers and members who would be happy to be contacted again to further explore their needs and how PAS might support them in future.

Research into the Duty to Cooperate 7

1 Introduction 1.1 This report presents the draft findings from qualitative research with a range of local planning authorities and other PAS stakeholders into the duty to cooperate (the duty). In particular it contains a number of findings regarding the response to the current PAS offer of support around the duty and makes a series of recommendations on the next iteration of the offer. 1.2 The report is structured around the three lines of enquiry for the research: ●● What views and concerns do authorities have regarding the duty? ●● What response has there been to the current PAS support offer around the duty? ●● What support could PAS offer in future around the duty? 1.3 The research was commissioned in the context of the number of authorities taking up the PAS intensive support offer, launched in 2013, falling below expectations. This is despite the fact that those who have accessed the support have been very positive about its benefits.

Methodology 1.4 The research evolved in a number of stages. ●● Initiation workshop. We held a two-hour workshop with the client to fully understand the background and context to the project and the desired outcomes from the research. ●● Stakeholder scoping interviews. We then conducted 18 interviews with a mixture of PAS stakeholders. The stakeholders included the Planning Inspectorate, LGA, Planning Officers Society and 6 authorities that had taken up the PAS support offer in previous years. The purpose of these interviews was to get their views of stakeholders on the high-level research questions. ●● Local planning authority fieldwork. Using the insight from scoping interviews, we carried out 75 interviews – primarily with planning leads – to build up a detailed picture of their support needs and soft market test a revised offer. Interviews were conducted with local planning authorities from across England, with a mix of urban and rural authorities, and different types of authorities. The interviews were primarily qualitative and semi-structured, but we were able to collect some quantitative data. As the project evolved we focused more on soft market testing the future offer which we set out in section 6. This stage involved interviews with 10 elected members, in addition to the two elected members we interviewed at the stakeholder scoping stage. ●● Presentation of emerging findings to the PAS Board. We presented our emerging findings to the PAS board in late January, summarising the key support needs described to us by local planning authorities and the outline of the offer that we proposed to start market testing. ●● Development industry interviews. At the suggestion of PAS Board members, we tested our emerging proposals with 10 development industry contacts. ●● LGA principal advisers. As our thinking developed about how the proposed future support offer would fit with the LGA’s wider support offer, we conducted interviews with 6 LGA principal advisers. Principal advisers are responsible for the LGA’s relationship management with local authorities.

Research into the Duty to Cooperate

1.5 In total, we conducted 109 interviews between January and March 2015. 1.6 This staged approach meant we were able to constantly test our hypotheses and develop our proposals in a short space of time. We asked distinct questions of the different groups described above – for example, interviews with the stakeholders and development industry contacts were more exploratory – so were not gathering quantitative data across the different stages of the research. 1.7 We did collect some quantitative data through the fieldwork with local planning authorities by using SurveyMonkey to record the answers to 40 telephone interviews. We tailored the interviews to each respondent so we did not collect data when it made more sense to focus on other topics. Toward the end of our research, we also focused much more on testing out our proposals for the future support offer. In considering the response to the existing PAS support offer we also build on previous research on the 2013-2014 duty support package.

Structure of this report 1.8 Section 2 explains the high-level context for the research, including changes to planning policy since 2011. Section 3 sets out research participants’ views and concerns regarding the duty. Section 4 explores the reasons for the response to the current PAS offer. Section 5 makes a series of recommendations on PAS’ future offer of support around the duty. Section 6 makes some proposals for how the recommendations could be taken forward. 1.9 Following the order of the fieldwork described above, in sections 4, 5 and 6, we set out: ●● The stakeholder perspective – based on interviews conducted with the 12 PAS stakeholders as well as feedback from six local authorities who have taken up the PAS support offer in previous years. ●● The local planning authority perspective – based on interviews with 64 planning officers and chief executives from local planning authorities from across England, with a mix of urban and rural authorities, and different types of authorities. At this stage there was a mix of more qualitative and quantitative interviews, with quantitative data available from 40 of these interviews. ●● The elected member perspective – based on interviews with 6 elected members from local planning authorities. ●● The industry perspective – based on interviews with nine development industry contacts. ●● The Principal Adviser views – drawing on interview with six of the team of seven advisers. 1.10 At the end of Section 6 we also make our own recommendations for the future of the PAS support offer around the duty.

Research into the Duty to Cooperate

2 Context 2.1 This section sets out the context for the research, explaining relevant changes to national planning policy since 2011 and highlighting the reductions in local planning authority capacity.

National Planning Policy 2.2 In November 2011, the Localism Act signalled the revocation of regional spatial strategies, introducing a number of changes to the planning system. The aim of the act was to devolve more decision making powers from central government into the hands of individuals, communities and councils. Authorities1 are expected to address strategic issues in Local Plans and demonstrate how this has been managed through the “duty to co-operate” set out in Section 110 of the Localism Act. 2.3 In March 2012 the government published the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF). It sets out the government’s planning policies for England and how these are expected to be applied, stating that “the purpose of the planning system is to contribute to the achievement of sustainable development”.2 2.4 Paragraphs 178-181 of the NPPF go into detail on the requirements of the duty, stating that “public bodies have a duty to cooperate on planning issues that cross administrative boundaries, particularly those which relate to the strategic priorities set out in paragraph 156”. 3 This includes “the homes and jobs needed in the area”.4 2.5 According to the NPPF, “joint working should enable local planning authorities to work together to meet development requirements which cannot wholly be met within their own”.5 Cooperation should be a “continuous process of engagement from initial thinking through to implementation. This could be by way of plans or policies prepared as part of a joint committee, a memorandum of understanding or a jointly prepared strategy which is presented as evidence of an agreed position”.6 2.6 The importance of cooperation is further stressed: “local planning authorities will be expected to demonstrate evidence of having effectively cooperated to plan for issues with cross-boundary impacts when their Local Plans are submitted for examination”.7 Co-operation should result in “a final position where plans are in place to provide the land and infrastructure necessary to support current and projected future levels of development”.8

2 3 4 5 6 7 8

istrict councils are responsible for most planning matters, other than transport and minerals and waste planning which are D typically functions of the county council. In some areas of the country single tier authorities have responsibility for both district level and county level planning matters. In London the Mayor also has powers to determine certain planning applications of potential strategic importance. National Planning Policy Framework (March 2012) – pg. 2, para. 6 National Planning Policy Framework (March 2012) – pg. 42, para. 178 National Planning Policy Framework (March 2012) – pg. 42, para. 156 National Planning Policy Framework (March 2012) – pg. 36, para. 179 National Planning Policy Framework (March 2012) – pg. 43, para. 181 National Planning Policy Framework (March 2012) – pg. 43, para. 181 National Planning Policy Framework (March 2012) – pg. 43, para. 181

Research into the Duty to Cooperate 10

2.7 If the Inspector finds that the duty has been complied with at Local Plan, the examination will also test whether the Local Plan is sound. The NPPF sets out four criteria by which Local Plans should be assessed by inspectors for their soundness. These are that Plans should be: ●● Positively prepared – “based on a strategy which seeks to meet objectively assessed development and infrastructure requirements, including unmet requirements from neighbouring authorities when it is reasonable to do so and consistent with achieving sustainable development”. ●● Justified – “the plan should be the most appropriate strategy, when considered against the reasonable alternatives, based on proportionate evidence”. ●● Effective – “the plan should be deliverable over its period and based on effective joint working on cross-boundary strategic priorities”. ●● Consistent with national policy – “the plan should enable the delivery of sustainable development in accordance with the policies in the [NPPF]”.9 2.8 In considering Local Plans submitted for examination, Inspectors find it necessary to distinguish between the pass/fail “legal test” and the “soundness test”. The duty is a legal test that requires cooperation between local planning authorities and other public bodies to maximise the effectiveness of policies for strategic matters in Local Plans. It is separate from but related to the Local Plan test of soundness. 2.9 Relatively few authorities have failed on the legal test. Essentially, passing the legal test requires a local planning authority to demonstrate that it has engaged with neighbours on strategic matters of mutual interest at both an officer and political level. Most – but not all – pass this test and increasingly do so by submitting duty to Cooperate Statements. Sometimes these are nearly as long as  the Local Plan itself. 2.10 However, it is often more difficult to demonstrate that the plan is soundly based on effective cooperation with neighbours on strategic matters. The soundness tests as set out above are relatively clear. The duty itself is a “process” test, but the four soundness tests are both “process and outcome tests” and this is where it is much more ambiguous. In particular, how unmet requirements from neighbouring authorities are being met, “when it is reasonable to do so,” is a very high – and ambiguous – test. 2.11 In 2013 the government revised and updated Planning Practice Guidance to make it more accessible. It provided further guidance on how the duty should be applied in local planning. 2.12 The Guidance states that “Local planning authority councillors and officers are responsible for leading discussion, negotiation and action to ensure effective planning for strategic matters in their Local Plans”.10 2.13 It also highlights that “the duty to cooperate is not a duty to agree”11, but states that local planning authorities are required to “make every effort to secure the necessary cooperation on strategic cross boundary matters before they submit their Local Plans for examination”.12 This means they should “have explored all available options for delivering the planning strategy within their own planning area”. 2.14 If another authority will not cooperate, “this should not prevent the authority bringing forward a Local Plan from submitting it for examination”.13 In this case, however, the authority will be required to submit “comprehensive and robust evidence of the efforts it has made to cooperate and any outcomes achieved”. This will be “thoroughly tested at the examination”.

9 National Planning Policy Framework (March 2012) – pg. 43, para. 181 10 Planning Practice Guidance, Duty to Cooperate, paragraph: 005 – see: http://planningguidance.planningportal.gov.uk/blog/ guidance/duty-to-cooperate/what-is-the-duty-to-cooperate-and-what-does-it-require/ 11 Planning Practice Guidance, Duty to Cooperate, paragraph: 001 12 Planning Practice Guidance, Duty to Cooperate, paragraph: 003 13 Planning Practice Guidance, Duty to Cooperate, paragraph: 003

Research into the Duty to Cooperate 11

Operation of the National Planning Policy Framework 2.15 The NPPF has now been in operation for around three years. While it is too early to assess fully the impact, it is clear there have been significant changes to the planning system which have needed time to ‘bed in’ and be fully understood by local planning authorities.14 2.16 As of 31 January 2015, only around a fifth (22 per cent) of local planning authorities had adopted Local Plans since the NPPF was introduced.15 Over two-fifths (41 per cent) of authorities do not have Local Plans adopted at all, although 80 per cent of authorities are at least at publication stage. 2.17 Evidence submitted to a House of Commons inquiry into the operation of the NPPF suggested that a high proportion of strategic plans withdrawn since the introduction of the NPPF, had been withdrawn at least in part because the inspector had found that the duty had not been met or that the council had failed to engage with its neighbours.16 2.18 This is consistent with views expressed by the Planning Officers Society (POS) in a planning manifesto issued in early 2014. It said that the duty is challenging and leads to too many plans failing, “particularly in terms of establishing cross boundary objectively assessed housing need and cooperating with authorities at different stages in their plan production”.17 2.19 Other reasons suggested to the House of Commons committee for the failure to get plans in place include: the approach taken by the Planning Inspectorate (PINS) to examining Local Plans; a lack of political will; and, inadequate financial and human resources.18

Reductions to authority capacity 2.20 Looking beyond planning policy, the duty was introduced at a time of serious challenges in the UK economy. Since 2010, the government has reduced its funding for local government in England as part of its plan to reduce the deficit. Between 2010-11 and 2015-16 there has been an estimated 37 per cent real terms reduction in government funding to local authorities.19 2.21 Within this context, the largest spending reductions have been in planning and development services in single tier and county councils. According to the National Audit Office, the average budgeted real-terms reduction in spending on planning and development services from 2010-11 to 2014-15 is 46 per cent.20 Most of this reduction took place in the first two years of the spending reductions, in 2010-11 and 2011-12. 2.22 Local authorities have responded by reducing spending, often with sharp cuts to staffing costs. According to the House of Commons inquiry into the operation of the NPPF, the absence of skilled and experienced planners may be contributing to delays in getting plans adopted.21

Reforms for supporting economic growth 2.23 There have also been a number of other policy and organisational changes in recent years; the implications of which touch on our research. In particular, there has been a wholesale reorganisation of the economic development landscape, with Regional Development Organisations (RDAs) being replaced by Local Enterprise Partnerships (LEPs). LEPs are partnerships between multiple local authorities and businesses which exist to encourage local economic growth. There are currently 39 LEPs across England. 14 H ouse of Commons, Communities and Local Government Committee (2014) Operation of the National Planning Policy Framework, Fourth Report of Session 2014–15 15 The Planning Inspectorate (2015) Local Plans (strategic issues/’core strategies’) progress – 31 January 2015 16 House of Commons, Communities and Local Government Committee (2014) Operation of the National Planning Policy Framework, Fourth Report of Session 2014–15 17 Planning Officers Society (2014) Planning for a Better Future: Our planning manifesto for the next government 18 House of Commons, Communities and Local Government Committee (2014) Operation of the National Planning Policy Framework, Fourth Report of Session 2014–15 19 National Audit Office (2014) The impact of funding reductions on local authorities 20 National Audit Office (2014) The impact of funding reductions on local authorities 21 House of Commons, Communities and Local Government Committee (2014) Operation of the National Planning Policy Framework, Fourth Report of Session 2014–15

Research into the Duty to Cooperate 12

3 Views and concerns regarding the duty 3.1 In this section, we set out research participants’ views and concerns regarding the duty. First we set out the perspectives of the PAS stakeholders, including local planning authorities that have engaged with PAS. This is followed by the views of officers and chief executives from local authorities, with the views of elected members presented separately. Finally, we set out the views of a sample of development industry contacts.

The stakeholder perspective 3.2 As set out in the introduction to this report, we conducted 18 interviews with a mixture of PAS stakeholders including the Planning Inspectorate, LGA, Planning Officers Society and six authorities that had taken up the PAS support offer in previous years. This included two interviews with elected members. 3.3 These discussions allowed us to gain some ‘first thoughts’ of what the main issues were in relation to the duty. Even though we spoke to a range of stakeholders, we found a high level of consistency in terms of their views regarding the duty. 3.4 Stakeholders stressed that the way the duty was “dropped in” to the NPPF “at the last moment” (these are the words of one individual but reflect a general view), led to considerable confusion. Political rhetoric about the abolition of regional strategies created the impression that strategic planning had, in effect, been abolished and planning decisions would in future be taken by local authorities. 3.5 It was in this context that, according to some stakeholders, many officers initially saw the duty as a narrow process requirement, and so they could “get away with something nominal” in terms of commitment. By the time of the research, however, stakeholders were clear that this perception had largely changed amongst officers – the duty had become recognised as a “pretty fundamental test” by most local planning officers. 3.6 This can be an uncomfortable realisation. One stakeholder described how local authorities had been “spoon fed” by the old planning system or, as another put it, they “had their strategic planning done for them”. 3.7 Stakeholders described a similar change in understanding amongst senior officers and elected members. Prompted by their planning teams and made aware of cases where authorities had been found non-compliant with the duty, senior officers and elected members were going through the same process of realisation as their planning colleagues – understanding that the duty can raise complex strategic questions which cannot be ‘left to the planners’. 3.8 However, this change in understanding was occurring at a slower rate. There remains an important job for PAS to continue raising general awareness of the duty and its implications. 3.9 Stakeholders were clear that some areas remained “in denial”. As one stakeholder put it, “everyone understands it, but not everyone wants to acknowledge it”. Put simply, these were areas where the political leadership was set against housing development and had no interest in cooperating.

Research into the Duty to Cooperate 13

3.10 From their experience, stakeholders identified different kinds of areas which were likely to face particular challenges with regard to the duty: ●● Authorities that border London. As the London boroughs are not covered by the duty in the same way as other local authorities, this raises questions as to how neighbouring non-London authorities should best engage them. ●● Authorities with significant amounts of greenbelt. Some of these authorities will have been used to a slower pace of growth and/or have political leadership that is against housing growth within their own boundaries. Ministerial commitment to preventing any greenbelt development means the consequences of not having a Local Plan in place poses less of a problem. ●● Areas that contain an under-bounded town/city surrounded by largely rural authorities. In these cases, there are often long-running tensions between the authorities involved. 3.11 The final point which a number of stakeholders made was that authorities are trying to work toward compliance with the duty at a time when: the capacity of individual local authorities was being significantly decreased; and the strategic planning profession as a whole had lost a great deal of knowledge and experience following the abolition of regional plans. 3.12 The stakeholders gave us examples of relatively junior officers taking more time than more experienced colleagues to realise that the duty was about strategic planning. And even when they “got there”, they may have lacked the experience to articulate the need for PAS support.

The local planning authority perspective 3.13 Building on our initial round of discussions, we conducted interviews with local officers and Chief Executives from local planning authorities from across the country to get their views and concerns in relation to the duty. These discussions allowed us to test out the observations emerging from our initial round of interviews. At this stage the majority of discussions were based on a more structured format with survey data recorded from 40 interviews, while others (24) were more qualitative, allowing more focused conversation on particular challenges where appropriate. We also spoke with six elected members and discuss their views separately below.

Increasing awareness 3.14 We sought first to understand how far officers felt they understood the duty, and how well they thought senior officers and elected members understood the duty. 3.15 As discussed above, the duty was introduced relatively recently. As such, many of the planning officers we interviewed said it had constituted something of a “learning curve”. 3.16 Broadly speaking, planning officers now understand both the technical requirements of the duty, in relation to the legal test, and to a large extent, its strategic/political implications. Based on the interviews recorded via SurveyMonkey, 85 per cent of respondents thought that the duty was now well understood at officer level, including 33 per cent of respondents who thought it was ‘very well’ understood. This can in large part be attributed to PAS’ general dissemination role, particularly in highlighting the lessons and consequences from early failures to meet the duty. “Lessons from examination are starting to filter through”

Research into the Duty to Cooperate 14

3.17 Many planning officers described how the abolition of Regional Strategies, and accompanying political commentary, created the impression that strategic planning was now the concern of individual local authorities. The duty therefore created confusion as it seemed to contradict that impression. “They thought regional planning had been abolished – it wasn’t. It was delegated.”

“ The removal of top-down regional planning, whatever you thought of it, created a void. People thought planning had become sovereign, just within their own boundaries.”

“ In the past we have had the regional assembly which made decisions for us. We need to make decisions ourselves now.” 3.18 Planning officers argued that senior officers within authorities have a growing understanding that the duty is not simply a technical process. Previously, the duty was often seen as something to be ‘left to the planners’; now they recognise that it can raise strategic/political questions about future planning and the distribution of homes. “…most officers [now] appreciate that the duty is a pretty fundamental test”

“ There is a desire to work together where we can. The challenge is seeing how that works out in terms of planning policy. It’s one thing to work with your neighbours on funding bids, economic policy. It’s another when you start giving up decisions on things like the greenbelt.”

“ I don’t think senior officers and members are aware of the implications and how severe they are. You can’t dodge them – they will come to bite you at some point.” 3.19 These questions can be highly contentious and involve elected members. Political buy-in is therefore crucial to the duty. However, in general, the planning officers believed the duty to be less well understood among elected members. Only 30 per cent of the respondents recorded on SurveyMonkey thought that the duty was well understood at member level, with only one respondent indicating it was understood ‘very well’. 3.20 In part this may be to do with the stage that authorities are at with their Local Plans. Interviews from authorities that were ‘working towards submission’ reported a higher view of members’ understanding than those authorities at an earlier stage of pre-publication (‘issues and options’ or ‘preferred options’). It may also reflect the role of the member. Officers stated that portfolio holders and other relevant cabinet members had a growing understanding of the duty and its implications, particularly where they are involved in working groups related to Local Plan development. “If members have been involved fully, they have a better understanding.”

“The key members do have a good understanding, so not a huge problem.”

Research into the Duty to Cooperate 15

3.21 However, planning officers reiterated the view from stakeholders that some elected members can decide to remain “in denial” about the duty, particularly those more peripheral to Local Plan development. This is mainly apparent in areas where there are political differences, where some members are “not prepared to make the duty work”. “Everyone understands it, but not everyone wants to acknowledge it”

“They [elected members] choose to take notice if it suits them” 3.22 At this point it is also important to stress that duty-practice is evolving. As understanding is being improved through experience, many planning officers suggested that compliance with the duty is now being tested more rigorously at examination. Moreover, as duty-practice evolves some planning officers are becoming more wary of issues on the “operational, practical side”. In several interviews, officers were reluctant to suggest their authority fully understood the duty because of uncertainty around delivery. “Everyone understands the principal and the context, but perhaps not how to deal with it.”

Hostility to the duty 3.23 It is worth reflecting that we also heard some hostility from a small number of officers regarding the duty. They saw it as an inadequate ‘half-measure’ nod toward strategic planning. These comments tended to come from officers who argued that ‘proper’ strategic planning was needed. This was not necessarily a return to the previous regime, but an appeal for more meaningful sub-regional/regional/ national strategic planning. “ I don’t think [the duty] brings any value. We were already cooperating. It just became a bureaucratic hoop to jump through.”

“It’s ill thought-out, a poor substitute for regional planning.”

“I t seemed it was becoming a very bureaucratic process – becoming an industry in itself rather than something for improving and streamlining the planning industry.”

“ People are meeting for the sake of it. I’ve sat in meetings and thought ‘I’m here and I don’t know why’.” 3.24 This makes the PAS ‘selling job’ around the offer even harder and fed into our thinking that it should change the focus of its marketing, as we explore later. 3.25 As set out below, some of these views were reflected by industry contacts.

Research into the Duty to Cooperate 16

For some authorities, the duty is ‘business as usual’ 3.26 For groups of authorities which have a history of joint working and a shared vision for growth (or at least an emerging vision), the duty requires little more than a continuation of ‘business as usual’. 3.27 Such groups have generally understood both the technical requirements of the duty and its strategic implications from an early stage. They usually have structures and – just as importantly – relationships in place to work through them. This gives these authorities more confidence with regard to the duty, although in some cases it has created more of a need to formally capture an audit trail of cooperation. 3.28 We talked to a number of authorities in the same sub-region, where they have fairly well-developed structures and history of cooperation. They were already working on shared development goals, so demonstrating compliance with the duty meant little more than a change to how they recorded the work they did together. 3.29 These areas have limited support needs, though they may need support in future as policy changes. “We have a strong bond with [a group of surrounding district authorities]. The duty just gives us another reason for talking at that strategic level, for seeing our inter-relationships.”

“The duty is business as usual, we benefit from a long period of joint working. The political issues just need to run their course.” 3.30 For these authorities, the incentive to cooperate is the potential to bring forward significant amounts of new homes and infrastructure.

But the duty raises important challenges 3.31 As part of our discussions with planning officers and chief executives we sought to test out which challenges were the most widely recognised in local planning authorities in relation to the duty. Our list of potential challenges was based on our initial discussions with stakeholders. 3.32 Overall there was strong agreement that the potential issues we proposed were the right ones. Virtually all of those interviewed agreed that the issues we listed could be challenging in relation to the duty, although the significance of each varied, with some differences between local planning authorities. This is demonstrated in the chart below, which is based on responses from 38 planning officers and chief executives.

Research into the Duty to Cooperate 17

Figure 1: Main issues faced by authorities in relation to the duty (weighted average) “Thinking about the main challenges that your authority faces in meeting the duty to cooperate, on a scale of 1 to 5, to what extent do you recognise each of the following?” Agreeing a distribution of housing/employment land with neighbouring authorities

4.00

Doing eﬀective cross-boundary strategic planning at LA level

3.42 3.34

Political diﬀerences

Lack of alignment with neighbouring areas in terms of Local Plan development

3.16 2.1 3.08

Capacity in the authority (numbers of personnel)

Skills/expertise in the local authority

2.45

Relationships with external bodies, e.g. LEP(s), Highways Agency, Environment Agency

2.43 2.08

Reaching agreement on strategic housing market areas 1 Not at all

5 Completely

Source: Shared Intelligence interviews. Based on 38 answers (2 skipped).

3.33 From these discussions, the most commonly recognised issues for local planning authorities were around ‘agreeing the distribution of housing land with neighbouring authorities’, ‘doing effective cross-boundary strategic planning at a local authority level’ and issues arising from ‘political differences’. There is obviously some crossover between these; we explore the concerns about the duty more below. 3.34 It should also be noted that capacity, in terms of numbers of personnel, was also seen as a significant challenge, especially in districts and county authorities. However, this was often viewed as part of a wider matter (rather than something duty-specific), which made meeting the duty (already “resource intensive” work) even more difficult. This is discussed in more detail later.

Research into the Duty to Cooperate

Concerns about the duty 3.35 We explored the issues that the duty raised, and identified four predominant concerns: ●● Across different areas, there is confusion about what is expected to pass the soundness test. ●● In areas where there is no history of joint working and/or conflicting planning goals, the duty is raising complex questions that are not being answered, or in some cases even being addressed. ●● In areas where some authorities are eager about cooperation, but have neighbours that are less keen, the main concern is that there is no way to compel their neighbours to engage meaningfully – as a result, they fear the duty will only create processes without delivering outcomes. ●● In areas where neighbouring authorities are at different stages in relation to their Local Plans, there is confusion about how to demonstrate cooperation and achieve compliance with the duty. 3.36 Here, we explore each of these concerns in more detail.

Confusion about the soundness test 3.37 Even in some of the areas where the requirements of the duty are seen as ‘business as usual’, there is some confusion about what is expected to pass the soundness test, due to: ●● For some, a general lack of appropriate central government guidance and clarity around the soundness test. ●● The perception of mixed official/political messages from central government – with some messages being perceived as suggesting the duty as a whole does not need to be taken very seriously. ●● A perception that ‘the bar is being raised’ in terms of what authorities need to demonstrate at examination in order to pass the soundness test. ●● A linked concern that different inspectors focus on different areas and take different views about what is ‘good enough’ in terms of the four soundness criteria. 3.38 Thus, there remains a need for greater clarity if authorities are to understand how to meet the duty. “It seems to be a changing picture, and that’s where our difficulty lies”

“We’re being blown in one direction and then the next by individual inspectors” 3.39 Importantly, this is also noted in Lord Taylor’s External Review of Government Planning Guidance22; while the House of Commons Inquiry into the Operation of the National Planning Policy Framework also recommends that “the Government, by March 2015, issue clearer guidance on what constitutes cooperation”.23

22 L ord Taylor calls for “appropriate guidance to underpin the Duty to Cooperate, which is central to implementation of the National Planning Policy Framework” - Lord Taylor, DCLG (2012) External Review of Government Planning Practice Guidance 23 House of Commons, Communities and Local Government Committee (2014) Operation of the National Planning Policy Framework, Fourth Report of Session 2014–15

Research into the Duty to Cooperate

Raising complex questions 3.40 In other areas, the consequence of the growing awareness of the duty is the realisation that it raises strategic/political questions which can be problematic and controversial. Offers described how, in some cases, elected members are concerned that cooperation will lead to them having to review or even reverse their previously stated political positions e.g. on the nature and scale of development locally. 3.41 In such areas, where the duty is raising challenging questions, planning officers suggested to us they do not always feel empowered to try to address these questions, especially when they feel that their members are not interested in being compliant with the duty. “Everyone understands it, but not everyone wants to acknowledge it”

Uncooperative neighbours 3.42 For authorities that are keen to cooperate but have at least some neighbouring authorities that are less keen, the main concern is that there is insufficient compulsion and a lack of meaningful consequence for areas that do not cooperate. 3.43 This is also acknowledged in the House of Commons inquiry into the operation of the NPPF, which considers the scope for stronger penalties to be imposed on authorities that fail to introduce Local Plans.24 Moreover, for authorities where ‘positive’ outcomes have not been reached with neighbouring authorities, there is also seen to be a particularly high bar at examination. “ There is an issue with authorities not wanting to recognise their neighbours’ housing needs.” 3.44 At present, if authorities fail to get their Local Plan to pass, they risk not having local policies on which to base their planning decisions. However, there is no fixed time limit for having new Local Plans in place. In some areas, authorities may be content not to have plans in place. “ If you have an uncooperative partner, and they’re prepared to put up with the consequences and blame the government, there is no real sanction.” 3.45 As a result, officers fear that the duty will become nothing more than a set of processes that do not make a meaningful contribution to strategic planning. We spoke with one lead planner, for example, who had written regularly to his peers and, with a few exceptions, received late and rather pro forma replies. “ The duty is not bearing particularly good fruit. We’re able to show processes. We wrote to [senior planners in other authorities] and didn’t get much of a response. I’ve got an audit trail of the letters. We can demonstrate intent. But is it meaningful? No, it isn’t.”

24 H ouse of Commons, Communities and Local Government Committee (2014) Operation of the National Planning Policy Framework, Fourth Report of Session 2014–15

Research into the Duty to Cooperate 20

3.46 That said, the research did unearth some examples where the threat of sanction due to noncooperation changed local dynamics in a productive way. In one case, a bilateral relationship that had been very difficult for a long time changed very quickly. The turning point was a realisation amongst members in a neighbouring authority that non-compliance with the duty could have major implications if they did not have an approved Local Plan in place. “ We now have a good relationship. There was an epiphany moment. The threat that you lose your land to the NPPF started changing minds.”

Different timescales 3.47 Planning officers regularly expressed uncertainty about how to demonstrate cooperation with neighbouring authorities when they are at different stages in the development of their local plan. This raises a number of issues. Authorities are generally keen to get their Local Plan passed. The concern is that if they constantly have to ‘pause’ to consult, following a new development in a neighbouring authority, no plans would ever get passed as the local situation is constantly evolving. 3.48 In areas which have fairly well-developed cross-boundary structures e.g. in some city regions, this is not a major problem. However, in areas which have little history of cooperation and few structures in place, it becomes a more significant difficulty. 3.49 In addition, when authorities have an adopted Local Plan, they are not always as willing to engage in joint evidence because they worry it will contradict their existing targets and cast doubt over their plan. “ It’s a hard duty to carry out effectively…The level of collaboration is a bit pick and mix as we’re all at different stages. It all depends on how far you are down the line.”

The elected member perspective 3.50 In testing out some of the views and concerns around the duty, we also undertook discussions with ten elected members from local planning authorities. These were all planning portfolio holders or council leaders. 3.51 We contacted a further six councillors who were not interested in taking part. That may reflect a lack of time to participate as much as a lack of interest in the duty. Those with whom we did speak are relatively engaged with the duty already. 3.52 The elected members we spoke to felt they had a relatively good understanding of the duty. However, there was an acceptance that this was not shared by all the councillors in their authorities and a recognition that in each of their authorities there were those that could benefit from understanding the duty better. Unsurprisingly, this is thought to be elected members that are more peripheral to the planning process. 3.53 There remains a lack of understanding, despite councils offering training (formal and informal) for elected members. Reflecting the difficult political questions that the duty can raise, one councillor suggested to us that members only “choose to take notice if it suits them”. 3.54 Another related issue is that elections lead to changes, meaning there is an ongoing need for training for new members. It was noted that this requirement will differ depending on the election cycle in each authority.

Research into the Duty to Cooperate 21

3.55 All but one of the elected members we spoke to were also confident that officers in their authorities had a good understanding of the duty. In several cases this was because of a history of joint working. However, there were also some concerns that the ‘goal posts’ keep moving and that there may be different or changing definitions of what ‘cooperation’ means in practical terms. “You think it is right and then you look at failures elsewhere and need to revise your work.”

The industry perspective 3.56 In the final stage of our research, we undertook discussion with private sector organisations operating in the planning field to gain their views of the duty. Most of these discussions were with developers; one took place with a legal firm. For most of these businesses, their capacity to deliver projects is linked to local planning authorities getting plans adopted with sufficient land allocated for housing and employment. 3.57 Private sector representatives had mixed views on the extent to which local planning authorities now understand the duty. Consistent with our findings from other stakeholders, they felt that officers now had a reasonable understanding of the duty and that the legal element (“the process part”) is easier to meet than the overall soundness test “ Most authorities are able to demonstrate enough conversation to meet the legal requirement.”

“ The soundness test is more difficult – the impact of the soundness test is that the duty is meant to lead to something.” 3.58 Some of the interviewees in this group were also able to offer examples of best practice where local authorities were working together – highlighting Greater Manchester, Cambridgeshire, and the south west of England. 3.59 However, they were less positive on the application of the duty and the understanding that elected members had of it. In some cases, interviewees felt that local authorities are looking for reasons to depress the amount of housing they allocate in their Local Plans. “ I don’t think they [elected members] fully understand what it means. A lot of people interpret it as producing their own plan and then having meetings with neighbouring authorities to get buy-in.” 3.60 Generally, private sector representatives were adamant that political considerations were at the heart of the duty. And while officers often have a better understanding of it, in some authorities they are not strong enough to make clear its importance. “ Local Authorities do understand the duty but they are reluctant to implement it. That reluctance is the key issue.”

“The difficulty is selling it to members.”

“ [There is a] distinction between what planners understand by the Duty to Cooperate and what members understand by the Duty”

Research into the Duty to Cooperate 22

3.61 The issues are therefore seen as “fundamentally about politics”. Mainly this relates to the challenges of identifying how unmet housing need is distributed. Politically it is seen as difficult to justify housing development from neighbouring authorities, which can lead to a “political reluctance” to implement the duty in some areas. 3.62 These issues are thought to be most significant in and around conurbations which have tight boundaries and are therefore reliant on neighbouring authorities to meet the demand for housing/ employment land. As one developer put it “when decisions need to be taken is when it [the duty] becomes difficult”. 3.63 In large part, this was attributed by the private sector representatives to the lack of a meaningful sanction against failing to produce a Local Plan, or not being in compliance with the duty on the way to producing a Local Plan. For example, one interviewee described how “too many political leaders prefer to leave decisions to the Planning Inspectorate” and then distance themselves from their judgements. This is particularly the case now that council leaders cannot “hide behind” regional/ country structure plans. Other private sector interviewees supported this view, suggesting that the previous planning regime had taken the “heated politics out of the issues at the local level”. The current system has returned the politics to the local level. 3.64 In this way, it may be more politically expedient for some authorities to let the Planning Inspector “take the blame where developments are approved”. This is considered more of an issue in areas where there is significant amounts of greenbelt land, particularly around London. 3.65 A number of other individual opinions came of the discussions with private sector interviewees. One developer also felt that the duty could act as a disincentive to prepare new plans – suggesting that some authorities were taking the holding position of “let’s wait and see what happens in the general election” as the new government could reduce the requirements of the duty. Another interviewee also raised concerns about the message being delivered from central government, which they felt could be clearer about the importance of the duty. 3.66 These issues are coupled with a lack of alignment in Local Plan development as well as serious capacity constraints, even as the “system is getting more complicated”. Taken together, some private sector representatives felt that these issues meant that some authorities were not taking acting in‑line with the Duty and there was no sanction to make them do so.

The Principal Adviser view 3.67 Among the six LGA Principal Advisers we spoke to, there was broad recognition that politics were often at the heart of problems with the Duty to Cooperate. Where elected members, including council leaders, had concerns about the consequences of cooperation, it left planning officers in a very difficult situation; unable to demonstrate work toward compliance with the Duty and unable to deal with the political barriers to doing so. “ Even if it looks like there are technical problems, they will often be driven by member will”.

“ Some councils are good about collaboration and cooperation and some are worried about working with their neighbours.” 3.68 In that context, the Principal Advisers encouraged holistic thinking about the Duty, looking to understand how it fits in with other challenges faced by local authorities. We explore this further in Section 5.

Research into the Duty to Cooperate 23

4 The response to the current PAS offer 4.1 This section sets out the evolution of the PAS offer – including its general dissemination offer and intensive offer – and the response to the PAS offer. It goes on to explore the perspectives of the PAS stakeholders, followed by the views of officers and chief executives from local authorities, with the views of elected members presented separately. The industry perspective on the current PAS offer was understandably limited because the majority of interviewees did not have knowledge of it.

The PAS offer The general dissemination offer 4.2 Since the introduction of the duty, PAS have had a general dissemination offer that has taken the form of workshops and online resources. 4.3 The workshops have been structured around a series of presentations that were a mixture of high‑level briefings and examples from local authorities of the work they were doing around the duty. 148 officers attended the five duty workshops in the autumn of 2014. 4.4 PAS’ online resources include: ●● Slide packs. ●● Practice and briefing notes, including one aimed at elected members. ●● Case studies. ●● FAQs. ●● Templates. ●● Key learning from inspectors’ letters to authorities that failed the legal test. 4.5 PAS’ monthly bulletin also regularly includes information on the duty. 4.6 As well as the general dissemination offer, PAS developed an intensive offer which has evolved over time.

The intensive offer in 2013/14 4.7 The first version of the offer, which was made available during 2013/14, consisted of on-site intensive support with groups of authorities. This usually took the form of four meetings, mainly with officers, but also with some senior officers, councillors and in some cases other stakeholders, to scope and then work through particular challenges. 4.8 There is evidence that the support met the needs of those delegates which did participate. An evaluation of the 2013-14 intensive support found that most (80 per cent) of respondents thought that the support offered by PAS was a good use of their time.25 And almost all (95 per cent) of respondents felt that the support helped them to understand each other’s timetables for producing Local Plans and work together. “ It [PAS support] made it real for the politicians that the duty is real and not going away. It created a willingness to do something.”

25 PAS Evaluation 2013-14 – Duty to Co-operate Support

Research into the Duty to Cooperate 24

4.9 However, only four groups of authorities took up the 2013/14 offer. This was below PAS’ expectations. 4.10 One of the main reasons for the low level of take-up was that PAS quickly understood the strategic requirements of the duty, and so offered support to bring together authorities to jointly work through those implications. Arguably, however, this offer was ahead of its audience, which in many cases needed more fundamental support to understand the duty, certainly at the senior officer and elected member level. 4.11 In practical terms, arranging meetings with groups of authorities was also a challenge at this stage. This was both because of difficulties in defining functional geographies and also logistically – arranging meetings and getting the right people attending, particularly senior officers and councillors, could be time-consuming.

The intensive offer in 2014/15 4.12 This thinking informed the revision of the offer for 2014/15 which became focused on making sure that individual authorities are ‘duty ready’. This took the form of: ●● A duty health check to review where the authority is with regard to its duty work, identify any issues and to help tell their ‘duty story’ (also available as a standalone piece of support). ●● More focused ‘in house’ support for all the key players in the council to help them understand and sign up to fulfilling their respective duty roles and to put in place the duty processes to manage and record this work. 4.13 As of February 2015, three authorities had taken up the health check and two had taken up the offer of in house support. PAS had also supplied four bespoke packages of work in response to requests for assistance.

Areas that have taken up intensive support in 2014/15 have benefited 4.14 Through the research we spoke with six officers from areas that had taken up the PAS intensive support offer in 2014/15. This included two authorities that had taken up the full offer and two that had taken up part of it. We also spoke with one of the associates who had delivered that support. 4.15 Areas that have taken up the intensive offer were very positive and, without prompting, described it as very helpful. We probed what made it useful, and were given a number of reasons: ●● The quality of the PAS team, who were seen as knowledgeable and practical. ●● The reliability of their information and advice – people felt that they were getting the most up‑to‑date information. ●● PAS’ relationship with CLG and other bodies like the Planning Inspectorate. ●● The organisation’s status and link to the LGA means it is welcomed as a critical friend by authorities. 4.16 It is also worth highlighting that most respondents mentioned the fact that the support from PAS was free. This is important in the current climate of budget cuts and it also de-risks the process in the sense that the officer cannot be accused of wasting money if the support does not give the authority what they expect. “ It’s the quality of the people they have. They’re at the top of their game, they know what they’re talking about. They have their finger on the pulse.”

Research into the Duty to Cooperate 25

4.17 We also probed the benefits of the support that areas received: ●● PAS can act as a convenor and facilitator – starting and sustaining conversations between areas, helping them to identify and start to address challenges. ●● PAS can cut through the confusion about the duty and give authorities a clear sense of what is needed in practice to be compliant with the duty. ●● From an officer perspective, PAS can convey and confirm the importance of the duty to members. ●● PAS can provide support for drafting and feedback on documents, including commissioning briefs. “An authoritative neutral broker offering free advice”

“ The more intensive session was particularly useful in terms of practical steps, describing the work that had to be done.”

“Members stop listening [to officers] after a while – PAS has that outside authority.”

“ It’s one thing for officers to deliver that briefing, but far better for an external person to come in. If members want to be awkward, it’s much more difficult to do that in front of an external person.”

“We got feedback on a topic paper, which we restructured on the back of their advice.”

“PAS wasn’t telling us what to do, but helping explore the way forward.”

The stakeholder perspective 4.18 Stakeholders attributed the low levels of take-up of the current intensive offer to a number of problems. 4.19 The kinds of issues the duty was raising in certain local authorities needed political and senior managerial input. However, PAS’ offer was too focused on the duty, rather than big-picture, strategic planning issues. This reinforced the idea that PAS provides technical and process advice. 4.20 Linked to the above, some authorities are still refusing to engage meaningfully with the duty. They are still ‘leaving it to the planners’ because there is no appetite to engage in sometimes difficult and complex discussion about growth and strategic planning. These areas would most likely significantly benefit from PAS support – but are very unlikely to ask for it. 4.21 Stakeholders also emphasised the point around local authority capacity. Given recent savings, many authorities no longer have a pool of senior and experienced officers working on strategic planning. As a result, remaining officers may not have the authority or time to engage their senior officers and elected members in work with PAS.

Research into the Duty to Cooperate 26

The local planning authority perspective Positive response to the PAS general dissemination offer 4.22 Interviews with officers and chief executives from local planning authorities have been almost universally very positive about the quality of PAS’ general dissemination offer. 4.23 When asked ‘How useful was the support you received?’, of the respondents recorded on SurveyMonkey, 88 per cent said the support they had received was useful, including over a third (35 per cent) of respondents who said it was ‘very useful’. None of those surveyed said that the support offered by PAS was not useful. 4.24 The website content is seen as thorough, up-to-date and authoritative – planning officers often look to PAS for the latest on the duty, though the level of use varies. Virtually everybody we spoke to was aware of the general information offer on the PAS website, with some looking at it regularly and proactively, and others visiting on a ‘need to find something out’ basis. “ Their site is the first one you go to.”

“ Newsletters and forums [are good]. Because one of the best ways of learning is to see what other authorities are doing.”

“ We’ve used their general material, and we have brought them in on specific projects. I attended an event. PAS are invaluable.” 4.25 We heard a few negative comments through the research. A small number of participants stated that some of the PAS material e.g. duty template, was too long and could be significantly simplified. “ We started using the draft statement template but it was far too complicated. They need to make things a bit simpler. I need two pages, not ten”.

“ They are potentially a really useful source of advice, guidance, examples, but I think they are prone to gold-plating their advice.” 4.26 However, there were also a few complaints that the toolkits were “slightly too basic”. This reflects the challenge of delivering general support to a wide range of stakeholders. 4.27 Planning officers stressed the importance of any material on the duty being specific and practical. To some extent this is already being done. One example is the ‘Doing your duty – practice update’ produced by PAS in June 2014. “ Everyone understands the principal and the context, but perhaps not how to deal with it.” 4.28 We also heard suggestions that PAS develops a specific email bulletin service that provides the latest information on the duty with some brief interpretation e.g. the key learning points from recent inspectors’ letters. Some thought would need to go into marketing this, ensuring that the lessons are put in the context of strategic planning.

Research into the Duty to Cooperate 27

4.29 PAS’ events are equally well regarded and receive very positive feedback. Participants benefit from: ●● Independent and objective advice. ●● The briefing style of the presentations. ●● The opportunity to network. ●● The chance to compare their practice to other areas. ●● In most cases, reassurance that they are broadly working in line with expectations around the duty. “ The events are good for networking, hearing other experiences. I leave thinking ’I don’t need to be so worried’. I come away with ideas too.”

“ The speakers were knowledgeable…practical examples were helpful.”

“ I think it was useful at the time. Certainly the visit they had answered questions.”

“ An opportunity to cut through some of the issues and share experiences from around the country.

“ It covered all of the bases – reassurance that we’re doing the right things.” 4.30 In similar vein to the online support, one planning officer said that the seminar support they had received had been “a bit too heavy, too time consuming”, while some others felt that they could be more tailored to specific areas. Again, this reflects the difficulty of delivering to an audience with a wide range of needs. The general message was one of positivity toward and appreciation for PAS’ events. 4.31 The only other criticism we heard of the events was that it got participants to the point where they thoroughly understood the duty and its implications – but didn’t give them a sense of how to move forward from that point. This is in line with our broader finding that PAS has helped areas to fully comprehend the duty and the questions it raises, but is not in many cases seen as the organisation that can help areas address those problems. “ I left [a workshop] thinking ‘That was great. I understand it now. But what do I do next?’”

Reasons why take-up of the intensive offer has been below expectations 4.32 While those who have taken up the support offer have benefited, in the ways described above, the take-up numbers of the full intensive support offer have been consistently below expectations. The research has identified a number of reasons why that is the case.

Research into the Duty to Cooperate

Limited awareness of the intensive offer 4.33 While PAS has a generally high profile, the intensive support offer is sometimes not recognised or well understood. Around two-thirds of those surveyed had some awareness of the intensive PAS support offer. However, knowledge of the intensive offer was usually fairly low. When probed, many interviewees only understood the intensive support offer in the vaguest terms. 4.34 We spoke with one head of a planning team who had received PAS support in the past, attended events and knew PAS staff members by name (and thought highly of all three). However, when discussing the intensive offer around the duty, he stated: “ To be honest, I didn’t know PAS offered support on the duty until I saw an email last week [early February 2015].” 4.35 Limited awareness of the intensive offer is likely to be a factor in the lower-than-expected take-up of intensive support. Put simply, local planning authorities are unlikely to request a support offer where they are not familiar with its contents.

Marketing of the support offer 4.36 PAS is often seen as offering technical advice to planners, not strategic/political assistance for leaders and senior officers. Due to PAS’ success in generally raising awareness of the duty, more people – beyond its core audience – recognise the strategic/political questions that the duty can raise. However, PAS is not always seen as a body that can help authorities work through these questions. The general impression is that PAS provides detailed technical and process advice, rather than highlevel strategic support. “ We go to PAS very much as a technical starting point. To see how they are interpreting things. But it’s rule book stuff, not the political side, the strategic stuff that comes with the duty.”

“ They need an offer around wider strategic planning. There is also something, and PAS are aware of this, around appealing beyond the planner.” 4.37 Research participants who were more familiar with the duty felt that the offer did actually address some of these strategic issues, but the marketing of the offer had been too narrowly focused on the duty. “ The support PAS offers is great, but they need to look at their marketing.”

“ They should pitch it as ‘How to do strategic planning’ or ‘How to stop your plan from failing’. That would catch politicians’ attention.”

“ From what I’ve seen, I’m convinced PAS has the right tools. The issue I think is to do with marketing.”

Research into the Duty to Cooperate

4.38 At this point it is also worth noting that relatively few authorities had taken up support on the duty from other organisation aside from PAS. Only around a quarter (28 per cent) of those surveyed had taken up support from elsewhere – and in the majority of cases this was alongside support from PAS.

Timing 4.39 ‘Timing’ is often mentioned as an issue, but this needs unpacking as it can mean two things at once. Respondents can mean that the timing was not right for their authority e.g. because members were not yet on board/up to speed with work on the duty so bringing in PAS would have been difficult. 4.40 They also often meant that the areas with whom they were looking to cooperate were at different stages in relation to the production of a Local Plan. In this context, the support needs may have been too diverse to adequately address and/or the politics of the situation would have made it difficult to access PAS support. 4.41 We also know from our work on other evaluations of support packages in different sectors that “not the right time for me” is a fairly standard answer for not taking up an offer. Looking to the future, it will be important for PAS to make clear that it can help at any point during the process, and authorities should not wait for the ‘right time’ before getting support – as that perfect moment may never arrive. “ Timing wise, the plans are all at different stages which makes meeting the duty more difficult.”

Some areas do not need intensive support As set out above, areas for which the duty is ‘business as usual’ do not need intensive support. Through the research, they expressed a desire for as-and-when clarification and reassurance on technical and process matters and a critical friend review of draft documentation. 4.42 In other areas, the duty does not raise significant questions and/or there are structures and relationships in place to work through whatever questions it does raise. Thus, there is little need for support beyond the technical. For example, we spoke with the planning lead from a predominantly rural district. They used the PAS site when necessary, but the duty had not raised any major questions or prompted any concerns. “ We don’t have a lot of stuff going on. There are no major transport routes, no big developments. We talk when we need to, but most of the time we don’t have anything to say.”

Research into the Duty to Cooperate 30

Other authorities are not asking for it 4.43 Through the research, we heard examples of authorities that would benefit from intensive support, but were not seeking it. This could be for two reasons. 4.44 Firstly, planning officers do not feel empowered to ask for support because the need is strategic and relates to political differences between authorities. Such officers see that their senior officer and elected members ‘don’t want to go there’ and thus do not seek support. “ The heart of the problem is that members don’t necessarily want to understand it [the duty] or be seen to take housing in their area.”

“ Officers understand the need for joint working…Elected members far less so. There are a lot of political issues in the background. They understand what they need to do, but that’s not always reflected in the decisions.”

“ I’d be surprised if authorities don’t know about the PAS offer. Possibly reluctance; having an external review maybe difficult if they are not meeting need.” 4.45 Secondly, in some cases the authority may not realise it needs support. As the quote below suggests, some authorities may believe they are acting in accordance with inspectors’ expectations, until they are found to be non-compliant with the duty. We think the number of these cases is declining as knowledge of the duty has increased and some early ‘case law’ has been established in terms of failure. “We thought we were doing everything right. Up until the point we failed.” 4.46 Some authorities acknowledge that they need support but do not have capacity to ask for it. This may seem to be a counter-intuitive finding, as authorities in this situation might benefit most from additional support. However, we heard several examples of planners describing situations in which ‘just getting through the day’ is hard enough, and it is difficult to take a step back, assess what support is needed and find/commission that support. “Who do planners turn to when they need help? I don’t think they turn to anyone. As a profession, we just tend to muddle through.”

“We have been offered support. But we’ve been meeting several deadlines…”

“Resource is the main issue. The [authority] is pulling resource away from strategic planning. That person is being pushed very hard.”

“We’re getting along with the process of doing what we need to be doing…it’s hard to stand back and reflect.”

Research into the Duty to Cooperate 31

4.47 The duty was introduced at a time when the strategic planning capacity of most authorities was being scaled back considerably, and in some cases will face further reductions. This has played out differently in different places. For areas where the duty is, more or less, a continuation of ‘business as usual’, the duty has generally not led to a great deal more work. However, areas which have little history of cooperation and limited structures in place feel under a great burden – it feels like “extra work”. “Lack of resource appears to be an issue, and a growing one for local authorities. Meeting the duty is a resource intensive process.”

“Capacity is a huge issue – all authorities are stretched, all authorities are making cutbacks” 4.48 In some cases, more junior planners might also lack experience of ‘bigger picture’ strategic planning. This could make it more difficult to articulate the need for PAS support.

The elected member perspective 4.49 Most of the elected members we spoke to were aware of PAS, having engaged with the general support offer. In those instances, interviewees all spoke positively about the support they had received. Two of the elected members had not engaged with PAS on the duty or Local Plan development. 4.50 Some of the features of the support offer which were most valued include getting input from someone independent and outside of the local authority and sharing good practice from around the country. “ Independence gives PAS more weight and people are more likely to listen”

“ By far the most useful [component] is examples of good practice from around the country” 4.51 One interviewee said that PAS acted as a bridge between what government ministers were saying about the duty and what would happen at examination. 4.52 At the same time, the elected members we spoke with generally see PAS as a technical body usually accessed through local planning officers. To that end, there is scope for raising awareness of PAS among elected members. 4.53 For example, there was little recognition of the intensive support offered by PAS. The one elected member who did know about it indicated it was something that officers might choose to take up. Moreover, another said they believed their authority had exhausted the support they could get from PAS and thought that they might have to pay for additional support.

Research into the Duty to Cooperate 32

The industry perspective 4.54 Private sector representatives were unable to give significant feedback on PAS’ current offer. One private sector developer who was aware of work PAS had done with a local planning authority in the south east, had been impressed with the role they had played in raising awareness of the duty. 4.55 Private sector representatives were supportive of PAS doing more work with elected members, with some acceptance that this would be difficult. They were also strongly supportive of PAS’ role in spreading awareness of best practice emerging throughout the country and acting as a facilitator between authorities making strategically difficult decisions.

The Principal Adviser view 4.56 In line with their observation that local politics were the main barrier to compliance with the duty, the Principal Advisers saw the lack of political support for the duty as the main barrier to take-up of the offer. “Even if members are knowledgeable enough, if they’ve got themselves elected saying ‘we will take no more housing growth’ they can’t be seen to do that”.

“Officers would have found a way of managing their way through if members were supportive.”

“It’s politics, with a capital and a small p.”

Research into the Duty to Cooperate 33

5 The future offer around the duty 5.1 This section makes recommendations about the support that PAS should offer in future around the duty. We include sub-sections on stakeholder, local planning authority and elected members perspectives. We do not include a sub-section on the industry perspective here as the interviewees generally did not know enough about PAS to talk in any detail about a future support offer. 5.2 We go on to make recommendations on the future PAS support offer. Firstly, we propose a number of key design principles for a future offer, followed by our views on PAS’ general dissemination support, and then propose a menu of options which we suggest replaces the idea of a single intensive offer.

The stakeholder perspective 5.3 As one stakeholder put it, PAS needed to go “back to the future” and offer something that looked more like its first iteration of support; bringing together elected members and senior officers to engage in discussions around strategic planning. Whereas this offer was ahead of its audience in the first year, stakeholders felt that the level of awareness of the duty was rising in a sufficient number of areas that the time was now right for an offer that was focused on strategic planning. 5.4 For those authorities where understanding was still low, it was crucial that PAS, through its dissemination and explanation role, should keep reiterating the point about the role of the duty in relation to strategic planning. “The danger is of just focusing on the duty as a tick box, rather than focusing on the strategic level – that’s the struggle with [a neighbouring authority]. They’re probably doing the tick box part enough, but not the strategic part.” 5.5 Linked to that, stakeholders were keen that any future offer should be marketed differently. Specifically, it should be explicitly focused on strategic planning and be aimed at senior officers and elected members.

The local planning authority perspective 5.6 As part of our discussions with planning officers and chief executives on the future PAS support offer, we initially soft-market tested the features of an outline offer with 27 interviewees. This included discussing what features of support were most valued, as well as when, how and who should be involved. As we proceeded, and our views on the future PAS offer became clearer, we moved on to soft-market testing the specific offer we were putting forward in a more qualitative way. This was done over 37 interviews with local planning authorities.

Identifying the design principles 5.7 In our initial discussions with planning officers and chief executives we undertook to test out the high-level ‘design principle’ of a future PAS support offer. These were features that had emerged from stakeholder discussions and been confirmed in discussion with PAS. 5.8 From 27 interviews with planning officers and chief executives from local planning authorities, there was general agreement that these features were the right ones to test, but there is variation in terms of the weight different local authorities attached to each of them. This is demonstrated in the chart below, which is based on the interviews recorded via SurveyMonkey.

Research into the Duty to Cooperate 34

Figure 2: Features of a future PAS support offer (weighted average) I’m going to list some potential features of a future PAS support oﬀer, on a scale of 1 to 5 can you say to what extent you would agree with each of the following features? It should bring together groups of Local Authorities to focus on strategic cross-boundary issues

4.37

Support should include elected members and/or corporate management

4.07

There should be some kind of review/critical friend support

3.96

It should feature case studies of joint-working arrangements elsewhere

3.89

There should be work done with Local Authorities individually (to develop capacity and/or understanding within the authority)

3.81

There should be a checklist of all the common issues faced by authorities in seeking to meet the Duty of Cooperate at diﬀerent stages of Local Plan preparation

3.78

It should be focused on developing governance arrangements/structures for doing cross-boundary strategic planning

3.41 1 Not at all

5 Completely

Source: Shared Intelligence interviews. Based on 27 answers (13 skipped).

5.9 Based on these discussions, the most commonly agreed features of a future PAS support offer were that ‘it should bring together groups of Local Authorities to focus on strategic cross-boundary issues’, ‘support should include elected members and/or corporate management’, ‘there should be some kind of review/critical friend support’ and ‘it should feature case studies of joint-working arrangements elsewhere’. 5.10 Overall, respondents were less sure that the future PAS intensive support offer ‘should be focused on developing governance arrangements/structures for doing cross-boundary strategic planning’. While this was generally viewed as an important element of meeting the duty, the relatively low weighted score reflected the fact that many authorities felt that they had that covered already. In areas where some kind of joint working arrangements already exist, it would not be necessary to work with PAS on this (e.g. some planning officers noted they were “already doing it” or that joint-working arrangements were “already in place”). However, as one officer put it, “it could be a feature where it is a problem”. 5.11 There was also less agreement that work was required with individual authorities. While some interviewees did regard this as important, many thought that it was increasingly important to focus on cross-boundary issues. 5.12 At the same time, it was generally felt that ‘one size doesn’t fit all’ when it comes to features of support, with interviewees pointing out that “all areas are different”, it “depends on circumstances”, and “depends on the needs of individual authorities”.

Research into the Duty to Cooperate 35

5.13 The vast majority of planning officers and chief executives we spoke to thought that support should be available on a continuous basis, recognising the fact that different support is required at different stages. 5.14 Interviewees also expressed strong support for a more pick-and-mix approach that could be highly tailored. This would require PAS to offer greater flexibility and more readily offer support to authorities who are at different stages in terms of the development of their local plan. This also reflects the fact that many authorities will have “gone beyond issues and options” and that the support offer needs to take this into account. “ At each stage in regulations there should be support.”

“ Continuous support is required; it is an ongoing process.” 5.15 In terms of who should be involved in the future intensive PAS support offer, there was strong support for involving both officers and elected members. Of the 27 planning officers who answered this question and were recorded on SurveyMonkey, over 90 per cent agreed that senior planning managers and the planning portfolio holder should be involved. Just over 70 per cent thought the Council Leader and two thirds that other planning officers should be involved. 5.16 When probed, there were mixed views on involving LEPs. Some officers thought that individuals from LEPs should be involved, with a few respondents convinced of this. However, others felt that they “might be involved in the future” or that involving LEPs would be “challenging in terms of resources”. There were also a small number of officers who did not think they should be involved at all. 5.17 Even those who agreed that it made sense to engage LEPs struggled to identify what that would mean in practice, given that LEPs have limited resources, and do not have a formal role in the planning process. 5.18 Similarly, there was broad support for the idea that discussions in relation to the Duty should be linked with existing or emerging Combined Authorities, but few suggestions for what that would mean in practice. 5.19 The lack of detailed thinking with regards to LEPs and combined authorities reflects the fact that planning officers are usually not involved in these strategic discussions. As a result, they can see the logic for making a connection with these broader agenda, but are unsure precisely what that would mean. 5.20 Planners would therefore recognise and welcome PAS making a connection between their offer of support around the duty and LEP/combined authority discussion, but PAS would need to be clear about what that would mean in practice.

Research into the Duty to Cooperate 36

Figure 3: Stakeholders to involve in the future PAS support offer (% of respondents) Thinking about a future PAS support oﬀer, which of the following should be involved?

96.3

Senior managers

92.6

Portfolio holder

70.4

Council holder

66.7

Other oﬃcers

Chief Executives

59.3

Other elected members

59.3

Other (please state)

3.7 0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

Source: Shared Intelligence interviews. Based on 27 answers (13 skipped).

5.21 Virtually all the planning officers and chief executives we spoke with said that support should be delivered through a combination of face-to-face and virtual/online support. Two respondents suggested that the future intensive support offer should be delivered in-person only. 5.22 However, in answering this question, it was not clear that interviewees felt there was a need for anything more than refinements to the existing online support. For example, there were suggestions that PAS could produce a duty-specific newsletter. There were also positive views on things like online forums and frequently asked questions, which PAS already offer as part of a general support package.

Soft-market testing the proposed offer 5.23 Following the presentation of our emerging findings to the PAS Board, we focused more on soft market testing our proposed future offer – which is set out below – in interviews with a further 37 planning officers and chief executives from local planning authorities. 5.24 There was strong support for our proposed future offer at this stage. Virtually all the interviewees agreed with the proposals described to them (one planning officer said it was “spot-on”, another said they “fully agree”).

Research into the Duty to Cooperate 37

5.25 Planning officers particularly stressed the importance of any offer being flexible and tailored to help them ‘sell it’ internally. “ It needs to be tailored to reflect particular situations and as a result needs to be flexible.”

“ One size will never fit all – it has to be on a menu choice basis.”

“ You need that flexibility, otherwise you won’t get very many taking it up – it will seem like more than they need, more than they want, or perhaps too intrusive.”

“ The offer should be broadened to make it tailored to an individual local authority.”

“ [The support] needs to be tailored to reflect particular situations and as a result needs to be flexible…It shouldn’t be a tick-in-the-box exercise.” 5.26 Support should be available on an ongoing basis as existing support needs evolve and new support needs emerge. This also reflects the fact that authorities are at different stages in their Local Plan preparation. “ Fundamentally, one of the problems for a lot of the authorities is they are already working [on Local Plans], retrofitting what they have done to fit the duty.”

“ What we’d like to do is to be able to ‘dip-in’ at various stages.”

“ Follow-up support is really useful. If PAS has a workshop they need to look to maintain engagement.” 5.27 Officers also reinforced the importance of involving elected members. “ Involvement of members is critical…senior officers, heads of services and team leaders should be involved with members.”

“ It’s very important that members and officers are on the same page.”

“ The political challenge is vital, [you] need to get members involved..”

Research into the Duty to Cooperate

5.28 While there was recognition from the planning officers we spoke with that engaging with elected members could be difficult, there were suggestions that PAS should be more proactive in its engagement, especially as capacity is reduced in local authorities. There was also a sentiment that PAS needed to “target more than the planning profession”. For example, there were also recommendations that PAS could target elected members directly, rather than going through officers, as well as engaging more with the LGA to market its support at a political/member level. Partly this is about getting the offer right. As one planning officer put it, “the first thing is that any offer needs to be compelling”. To that end there were suggestions that PAS should review the branding of its support offer to make sure they “get the title and message right”. This includes making it clear that support is about effective cross boundary strategic planning, “not just the duty”.

The elected member perspective 5.29 The elected members we interviewed also showed strong support for PAS to engage more with elected members – and from the outset of Local Plan development. In terms of awareness raising, the elected members interviewed generally thought that this should include all the councillors in a local authority (not just those in planning). “Having it right the way through – certainly for some authorities – would be useful.”

“The technical advice is good but one of the problems in all this is educating members.” 5.30 One elected member suggested that there was a tendency for Local Plan development to become “officer-led”. For example some officers will only involve elected members when they have something substantial to present. PAS support for elected members can help them to “ask the right questions of their officers” and ensure they are more fully engaged in duty issues from the outset. 5.31 In terms of the PAS offer reaching elected members the issue is largely thought to be about the marketing and branding of the PAS support offer. For example, elected members suggested to us that PAS should talk about “strategic planning in the context of NPPF” – or even “how not to fail your local plan”/“how to avoid your plan failing”. This is consistent with the views expressed by local planning authority officers and chief executives. 5.32 It could be beneficial for PAS to contact elected members directly about the support that is available, rather than going through chief executives or planning officers. This could be done by sending emails directly to the elected members involved in planning. However, it might also require phone calls or even in-person visits to authorities. 5.33 Elected members also suggested that PAS could work more closely with the LGA to promote its support offer or do more to promote a peer-based network. For example, one elected member suggested that councillors from authorities where PAS had a positive impact could become “salesmen” for PAS, another thought that the PAS website should feature testimonials from councillors in authorities that engaged successfully with PAS. 5.34 Finally, it was generally thought that support could be delivered to either single authorities or groups of authorities where appropriate. This would depend on authorities being at a similar stage in Local Plan development and sharing common issues. “I would say it would be better to have a mixture of both single authority and groups of authority meetings.”

Research into the Duty to Cooperate

The view of the LGA Principal Advisers 5.35 The LGA Principal Advisers were positive about the outline of the future offer being proposed (described by one adviser as “an appropriate and comprehensive package”). In particular, there was a clear recognition that engagement with elected members and Chief Executives should be a key component of a future support package around the Duty. “ It is about having a conversation with the key decision makers – that is leaders and Chief Executives…If you’re not engaging with those people around planning you are missing the opportunity”. 5.36 They were equally clear about the need for effective marketing. They reinforced the view that the offer should be pitched as an offer of strategic support to senior officers and members, rather than technical assistance to planners. “ They do have some god quality member development offers – it’s about how it’s communicated…The focus should be around the outcomes rather than the duty.”

“ The key to all this is how it’s communicated and how awareness is raised.” 5.37 The Principal Advisers saw the scope for and benefits of working with PAS to promote a strategic offer. This could mean: ●● Sharing local intelligence, including about authorities which may face particular difficulties in relation to the duty. ●● Brokering and supporting discussions between PAS and the political leadership and executive teams of authorities that have support needs and/or where PAS has concerns in relation to compliance with the duty. ●● Jointly delivering support, with support around the duty couched in a broader package of assistance. ●● Working together to get PAS into regional and sub-regional gatherings of officers and members. “ If PAS were going to enter into that territory I think they should do that with us. It’s so difficult and political”.

“ PAS will have a certain type of intelligence, and we will have another kind of intelligence. [We can] come to an agreed view on how to make that offer available.”

“ Our role could be brokering PAS in at a more senior level. We could jointly go in.”

Research into the Duty to Cooperate 40

5.38 The issue for the Principal Advisers is to ensure that a future PAS offer with a greater political dimension complements the work that they are doing. While PAS already engages with Principal Advisers, there is scope for strengthening those relationships, especially as PAS looks to engage more beyond local planning officers. It is equally important that the offer from PAS, and its promotion, does not lead to confused or repetitious messages. “We need to avoid a situation where we’re doubling up on work. Customers of the LGA get naffed off with repetition.” 5.39 To make this happen, Planning Advisers suggest that PAS set out a “well-developed, clear offer” around the Duty which can be shared as a short briefing paper. There were also suggestions that PAS could arrange to attend the joint meeting of the Principal Advisers on a regular basis, perhaps bi-annually. “We get bombarded with so much. There is something about being really clear about the offer.”

Recommendations on the future PAS offer Design principles 5.40 PAS should offer a menu of available support options rather than a single offer. One of the main issues with offering a specific package is that, as set out above, the timing has to be right for it to be relevant and useful to an authority. When the package is aimed at groups of authorities, it has to be the right time for all the authorities involved. This is often very difficult to achieve. A tailored approach reflects the fact local authorities often find themselves at different stages in Local Plan preparation. 5.41 On the ground, an agreed package of PAS support would: ●● Bring together groups of authorities where possible. ●● Be closely tailored to their needs. ●● Engage senior managers, leaders and portfolio holders. ●● Be clearly focused on strategic cross-boundary planning with PAS playing a broker and facilitator role. ●● Be ongoing, at a pace and regularity agreed between the authorities and PAS. “ It might be useful for PAS to set out clearly what kinds of support are available in a more modular way. By breaking down the offer, authorities can pursue an offer that best meets their needs”.

“ PAS could pump-prime and help get structures set up.”

“ In areas that aren’t resolved, someone independent is useful to mediate/broker a deal.”

Research into the Duty to Cooperate 41

5.42 The offer should be targeted at areas where PAS’ intelligence gathering highlights problems in relation to the duty. PAS will have significant and lasting impact by engaging deeply in areas where there are considerable problems in relation to the duty. PAS should discuss with LGA and CLG the most effective way to do this and what help they can offer. “ Some areas will need specific duty-related support, but you need to look more widely. PAS needs to appeal now to the political and corporate leadership.”

“ The offer needs to be about figuring out local difficulties, not passing Mr. Pickles’ test.”

“ What’s needed? Mediation and facilitation when things start to break down and get more difficult. General understanding is needed at the start, but a facilitation support role is needed when you get nearer to submission.”

“ It needs to be a varied package. It depends on the authority and the stage of the plan. [PAS] needs to continue getting the message out there. But for meeting specific issues, we might need more short/sharp specific tailored advice in different ways, on the phone or on-site. A mix and match.”

General dissemination and explanation service 5.43 PAS should continue to provide a dissemination and explanation service including technical advice – this is highly rated by planners and will become increasingly important for audiences beyond planners. It will also be important for keeping all audiences up to date as the understanding of, and practice around, the duty evolves. “ There still is, for many authorities, a failure to understand what the duty means. There is a need to continue with the education role.”

“ The duty is evolving over time, we’re always playing a little bit of catch-up.” 5.44 The kinds of information that planning leads and other officers described as useful were: ●● Short bulletins on the key messages/implications from recent inspectors’ letters. ●● Good practice case studies. ●● A ‘helpline’ that people can call with specific queries – we heard a number of comments that people would value such a resource in light of any changes to strategic planning following the election. ●● Templates. ●● Checklists. 5.45 PAS already does some of this but it was clear that research participants were often not aware of this fact, or they were aware of/had used one bit of support e.g. a template but in general were not familiar with the other content of the PAS pages on strategic planning. 5.46 In line with a revised offer, PAS may want to review, revise and re-launch its pages on strategic planning. Research into the Duty to Cooperate 42

A menu of support options 5.47 Adapting PAS’ description of the journey toward compliance with the duty (as set out in the Local Plan Legal Compliance Checklist), we highlight below the needs described by research participants and then a menu of options for how PAS can support them, to be tailored to the specific needs of the participating authorities.

Stage 1: Collecting evidence (the beginning) 5.48 The most commonly cited difficulties and challenges at this stage are: ●● Lack of understanding of the duty and its strategic/political implications (especially among elected members and some senior officers). ●● Confusion caused by a lack of clear guidance from central government. ●● Lack of awareness of duty issues beyond housing and employment. ●● Developing a shared and clear understanding of authorities’ strategic context and how this relates to the duty, including: ොො

The strategic geography, especially SHMAs (geographies can be different for different issues);

ොො

Key relationships (which again can be different for different issues); and

ොො

Identifying the priority cross boundary issues to be addressed in relation to the duty.

●● Developing governance and working arrangements for doing cross-boundary strategic planning. Commonly asked questions at this stage are: ොො

How are strategic issues going to be managed?

ොො

How will elected members and stakeholders be involved?

ොො

Will this be supported by any agreements such as a memorandum of understanding?

ොො

What formal arrangements will be put in place – how will these fit extant partnership arrangements?

●● Coordination – alignment of plans/establishing roles and responsibilities. 5.49 In response to these difficulties and challenges, the priority at this stage for PAS should be to raise awareness and understanding amongst senior officers and elected members so that, where needed, planning officers have the political support and legitimacy to address and make recommendations back to their senior officers and members on the above strategic questions. It should also continue to provide detailed technical advice. This could take the form of: ●● A targeted programme of half-day workshops on strategic planning and the role of the duty, facilitated by PAS, aimed at senior officers, leaders, portfolio holders. ●● Additional training/capacity building within local authorities for elected members. ●● Tailored packages of advice and support for individual authorities. ●● Initial legal compliance and soundness checklists of common issues. ●● Half-day workshops to bring together groups of authorities to walk through how they can address cross-boundary issues and working arrangements and ensure arrangements are in place for a credible evidence base.

Research into the Duty to Cooperate 43

5.50 As set out above, this support should be offered as soon as possible and it should be sustained. This was one of the strongest findings from our interviews. “ It’s much better to have support available through all stages...to ensure you are constantly getting feedback.”

“ The support should be ongoing with different packages as you go.”

“ Continuous support is required; it is an ongoing process.” 5.51 It is also crucial that support involves both elected members and planning officers, and where appropriate, senior managers and chief executives as well. 5.52 Ideally, support would bring together groups of Local Authorities to focus on strategic cross-boundary issues – the vast majority of interviewees thought this was an important feature of a future PAS offer. This reflects the importance of cross boundary strategic planning and would help PAS to reach a larger number of authorities with their support. “If you had a choice, groups of local authorities would be better.” 5.53 However, it is not always what planners say they want. One stakeholder suggested that support with individual authorities would be more productive, by allowing a greater focus on specific issues. The experience on 2013/14 intensive support offer also suggests that arranging group working sessions can be time consuming and resource intensive. In response, PAS should seek to work with existing cross-boundary groups where possible. Even in these cases, some authorities choose not to attend. The Principal Advisers indicated that, as long as the offer was clear and complementary, they could help PAS attend such events and broker relations with individual authorities such as those which do not attend meetings.

Stage 2: Issues and options (frontloading) – Preferred options (formulation) 5.54 The commonest – and interlinked – difficulties and challenges at this stage are: ●● Engaging with the complexities/potential conflicts of actually making strategic cross-boundary decisions through the arrangements established at the preceding stage. ●● Linked to the above, managing political differences within and between authorities. ●● Dealing with situations in which in one or more authority starts to withdraw or cease cooperating. ●● Agreeing a distribution of housing/employment land with neighbouring authorities (particularly where the scale of overall demand for housing/employment land is significant). ●● Developing relationships with external bodies, e.g. LEP(s), the Highways Agency, and the Environment Agency. ●● Ensuring evidence documents – especially where produced by external consultants – are sufficiently detailed and robust. 5.55 The priority for PAS at this stage in terms of support should be to guide senior officers and members through the challenges of making strategic planning decisions, including helping to manage and – where possible – resolve disagreement. This kind of support is best delivered by a named individual or very small team who can maintain contact with the key players and continuously build relationships.

Research into the Duty to Cooperate 44

5.56 Support from CLG and LGA e.g. in the form of brokering relationships with elected members, where PAS does not have them, will be particularly important at this stage. 5.57 This will also help PAS to target support at this stage to those areas that would benefit most. 5.58 In addition to any necessary continuation of the support provided at stage one, the support from PAS at this stage could include: ●● Support to identify areas of agreement and take these forward initially. ●● ‘Mediation’ workshops with senior officers and/or/followed by elected members on key areas of disagreement. ●● Ongoing relationship development between groups of authorities e.g. setting up and facilitating teleconferences between leaders. ●● Showcasing practical examples from elsewhere e.g. case studies of joint-working arrangements, use of MOUs etc., but these should be considered with reference to local context, with the understanding that replicating what works elsewhere isn’t always right. ●● Critical friend support to help authorities assess whether evidence documents being produced are adequate. This could be a light-touch sense check of material, which is often produced by external consultants.

Stage 3: Working towards submission (publication) 5.59 The key difficulties and challenges at this stage are: ●● The need for clarity and certainty around what is required to pass examination. ●● Concerns about inspectors’ focus, interpretation and expectations. 5.60 The priority for PAS support at this stage – assuming the areas have the structures and evidence in place as a result of working through stage 2 – is to offer critical eye support on the areas’ evidence and provide reassurance about the process. There may also be scope for PAS to support the area to maintain momentum. This could be achieved through: ●● A critical eye review function i.e. sense checking documents, testing the rigour of evidence. ●● Regularly updated key readiness questions and lessons from inspections notes. ●● Workshops on how to maintain cooperation in future.

Research into the Duty to Cooperate 45

6 Making it happen 6.1 We recognise that PAS has offered some of these services in the past, with varying degrees of success. We think there are a number of things that PAS can do to make it happen this time, several of which are related to how and to whom PAS markets its services: ●● Link with the LGA’s broader offer. ●● Stress that you are offering a free, bespoke and ongoing service. ●● Re-brand the offer – focus on outcomes – and market beyond the planners. ●● Take the offer of support on the road. ●● Target the offer – with input from CLG and LGA. ●● Develop a pool of evangelists. ●● Further discuss the menu – with a group of officers and members identified through this research. 6.2 We explore each of these in more detail here.

Link with LGA’s broader offer 6.3 We recognise that the suggestions made so far have implications for PAS’ resources. At the time of writing, PAS only has confirmed funding for the current financial year 2015/16. 6.4 There is a risk that PAS provides a great deal of support to a small number of authorities, which might not be seen as best value. Alternatively, PAS may find itself over-committed if the re-branding and marketing are successful. 6.5 To mitigate these risks, PAS should link its support around strategic planning with the LGA’s broader improvement offer, which includes peer review and challenge, leadership support and learning networks. This should include continuing to engage with the LGA Principal Advisers, for example by arranging to attend the Principal Advisors’ meeting biannually. 6.6 Where the need for support is complex and multi-faceted, PAS should liaise with the LGA on how the authority/authorities can access this wider support. 6.7 Specifically, PAS should think about how it can work even more closely with the LGA’s Principal Advisers. The Principal Advisers could help to broker and sustain senior executive and elected member relationships as long as the PAS support offer is clear and compelling. 6.8 This fits with our earlier recommendation that PAS should pitch their offer in terms of strategic, crossboundary planning – rather than more narrowly on the duty – as this is likely to raise wider issues of leadership, collaboration, intelligence sharing etc.

Research into the Duty to Cooperate 46

Stress that you are offering a free, bespoke and ongoing service 6.9 Given that the majority of people we spoke to had a vague idea of PAS’ existing intensive support offer, PAS has an opportunity to re-launch it as a menu of options that can be closely tailored to the needs of participating authorities. Support would be agreed on a case-by-case basis, identifying what support authorities they will get, when, where and in what format. 6.10 Tailored support is a key appeal for many officers, as the duty raises complex questions and challenges which, they stressed, could not be addressed through a standard package. 6.11 PAS should also stress that the offer of support is free. In the current climate, this makes it easier for planners to ‘sell’ the idea of bringing in PAS support. 6.12 Finally, PAS should stress that the offer is available at all and any points along the journey toward developing a local plan, and that areas should not wait for the ‘right time’ before accessing support.

Re-brand the offer – focus on outcomes – and market beyond the planners 6.13 As already iterated, it will be crucial for the new PAS support offer to be clearly branded in terms of supporting strategic, cross-boundary planning. This should include a focus on the outcomes that can be achieved (e.g. the adoption of a Local Plan). 6.14 This in itself will not achieve the breakthrough with other audiences – i.e. elected members and senior officers – that we believe PAS needs, but it will avoid the trap of focusing narrowly on the duty in a way that precludes those audiences. 6.15 The re-branding could accompany a refresh of the information on the duty on the PAS website, putting it more clearly in the context of strategic planning. While this is already happening to some extent, the content on the website is not always seen as easy to identify and may be too geared towards a technically-minded audience.

Take the offer of support on the road 6.16 Building on the revised branding, we think there is scope for PAS to change the way they take their offer to market. With regard to its events, PAS has traditionally adopted a ‘build it and they will come’ approach i.e. by organising an event for an intended audience and targeting that audience with publicity. This works well with PAS’ traditional planner audience, but less well with others. Events for elected members, for example, have been cancelled due to lack of interest. 6.17 To successfully engage wider audiences we think PAS needs to adopt a more proactive approach by, for example, getting onto the agenda of meetings of leaders groups, planning portfolio holders and lead planners meetings and, going further, LEPs and combined authorities. This may need some support from the LGA and District Councils Network. 6.18 The purpose of this would be to raise awareness amongst a wider audience of PAS and the support it can offer around strategic, cross-boundary planning. It would not be about trying to use those groupings as vehicle for working toward the compliance, unless there was local desire and agreement to do so. 6.19 PAS should also consider the most effective way to market directly to elected members, again with the support of LGA and DCN, through relevant conferences, publications and other outlets.

Research into the Duty to Cooperate 47

Target the offer – with input from CLG and LGA 6.20 Before their abolition, Government Offices (GOs) for the regions were able to provide CLG with a detailed and regularly updated stream of information about local authorities’ plan-making activities and performance against their regional strategy targets. 6.21 With the abolition of the GOs, there is much less of this sort of intelligence in the system. In turn, this makes it harder for PAS to confidently identify areas which might benefit most from its various offers. Though the PAS team certainly has a strong sense from their day-to-day conversations of where support might be needed. 6.22 We recommend that CLG provide PAS, on an annual basis, with a clear indication of areas that might benefit from its support. 6.23 PAS would need to be clear, as we are, this is not about PAS ‘enforcing’ the duty on behalf of CLG or forcing its services onto authorities. Rather, it is using LGA’s and CLG’s intelligence to tell authorities about support from which it might benefit but not currently know about. 6.24 It is about helping PAS to knock on the right doors, not PAS forcing itself through those doors.

Develop a pool of evangelists 6.25 Finally, given the high level of appreciation for PAS in areas that have received direct support, PAS should think about developing a pool of ‘evangelists’ who will proactively promote PAS to their own networks of peers. 6.26 This could include senior officers and elected members who were happy, for example, to mention what they get from PAS in event presentations or provide testimonials to be used on the PAS website and associated publicity materials.

Further discuss the menu 6.27 Rather than go straight to market, we suggest that PAS further develops the menu through conversations with a mixture of local authorities. 6.28 To facilitate that, we gathered through the research the names and contact details of 14 planning officers and elected members who would be willing to have a conversation over the summer about how they might respond to an offer of support. We have provided these details to PAS separately.

Research into the Duty to Cooperate

Shared Intelligence 1 Naoroji Street London WC1X 0GB Tel: 020 7756 7600 www.sharedintelligence.net solutions@sharedintelligence.net