Inspectors threaten to throw out St Albans plan

Inspectors have threatened to again throw out the draft local plan proposed for a London green belt council with the oldest local plan in the country.

A row has broken out after inspectors wrote to St Albans council alleging the district had failed to sufficiently demonstrate it had co-operated with neighbouring boroughs and statutory consultees over the draft plan.

The news is the latest setback for the draft plan for the upmarket Hertfordshire commuter town of St Albans which proposes almost 15,000 homes should be built over the next 16 years. It was submitted in March last year after its previous effort was thrown out by plan inspectors in 2016 for the same reason – a decision which St Albans unsuccessfully challenged in the courts.

In 2018 St Albans was threatened with government intervention over its lack of progress on the plan, before the government eventually backed down. Its current local plan dates from 1994, and is thought to be the oldest and most out of date in the country.

Under government planning policy, councils have a “duty to co-operate” with neighbouring boroughs over key strategic issues, such as where the identified housing need cannot be met locally. Local plans that fail the duty to cooperate cannot be approved.

The news comes nine years after planning reforms brought in the by the coalition government which they promised at the time would force authorities to quickly get local plans in place. According to government figures only 43% of councils currently have up-to-date plans in place.

In the letter to St Albans, the joint inspectors said that they were concerned that the council had failed the duty to co-operate over its decision that a site with permission for a key strategic rail freight interchange should be developed as a garden village instead, and over its decision to change its green belt boundaries to accommodate more homes, without first checking if neighbouring authorities could find space for the homes instead.

They said: “we are not convinced that the Council has met the terms of the Guidance and cannot be assured that it has fulfilled its DtC duty in maximising the effectiveness of plan preparation by engaging constructively.”

Councillor Jamie Day, portfolio holder for planning at St Albans City and District Council said the letter was “disappointing” because St Albans had “made improved efforts to work with its neighbouring councils and the County Council to demonstrate its commitment to cooperating with our neighbouring authorities”.

However, councillor Richard Curthoys, spokesperson on the Planning Policy Committee for the Conservative Group – the largest party at the council, which is under no overall control – hit out angrily at the letter, describing it as “confusing” and “perplexing”. He said: “We are disappointed at the planning inspectors’ letter. It’s clear that the many iterations of the duty to cooperate meetings between 2017 and 2019 have not been recognised.

“Furthermore, the Inspectors’ statement that “a lack of objections (to the plan) is not an indication that duty to co-operate has been complied with” is particularly confusing.

“The plan was discussed and presented to all statutory consultees who were then asked both verbally and in writing if they had any objections and if DtC had been complied with.”

Despite this, councillor Malachy Pakenham, spokesperson for the opposing Labour Group, said the local plan now risked being made “null and void”. He said: “Having read the eighteen pages of the Inspectors letter carefully I’m of the view that the Council’s options are limited, and the plan may have to be withdrawn and the process started again. However, the Council will urgently need to look at all its options to consider the best way forward.”

The inspectors have said they will take a final decision on the soundness of the plan after giving the council an opportunity to respond to their letter. However, because the question of the duty to cooperate is decided on what happens prior to the plan being submitted, there is little practical that the council can actually do now to remedy concerns raised by the inspector.