PAS held two events in September 2014 specifically on Waste planning and the Duty to Co-operate. The composite presentation below has the slides from both Hampshire (who spoke in London) and Derbyshire (who spoke in Leeds). - See more at: http://www.pas.gov.uk/web/pas1/strategicplanning/-/journal_content/56/332612/6519874/ARTICLE#sthash.n3cxYQzv.dpuf

1. Title: Waste planning and the
Duty to Co-operate
Alice Lester
Date: September 2014 www.pas.gov.uk

2. Duty to Cooperate Overview
• Legal Duty
• Affects local authorities and other public bodies
• Requirement:
– To engage….
• Constructively – reasonable opportunity
• Actively
• On an ongoing basis
– To maximise….
• the effectiveness of Local (and Marine) Plan preparation
• in the context of strategic cross boundary matters.

3. Duty to Cooperate Overview
• Loss of regional framework
• Reflects realities of the market which often does not
‘respect’ administrative boundaries
“net self –sufficiency”

4. Duty to Cooperate Overview
• Government expectations – NPPF:
– Local Plans should be based on co-operation with
neighbouring authorities
– Planning strategically across boundaries (178 – 181)
• joint working on areas of common interest to be
– diligently undertaken
– for the mutual benefit of neighbouring authorities.
– And the ‘greater good’.

5. Duty to Cooperate Overview
Paragraphs 171 – 181 continued..
• LPAs should work collaboratively with other bodies to
ensure that strategic priorities across local boundaries
are properly co-ordinated and clearly reflected in
individual Local Plans.
• Work together to meet development requirements which
cannot wholly be met within their own areas
• Consider producing joint planning policies on strategic
matters

6. Duty to Cooperate Overview
• WFD Article 16: Principles of Proximity and
Self-Sufficiency
– PPS10 – plan to provide framework to enable
communities to take responsibility for own waste +
nearest appropriate installation (mixed MSW)
– But...proximity principle doesn’t mean that each
WPA must deal solely with its own waste.
• Recognising economies of scale in facility provision as
well as WDA & WPA joint working

7. Duty to Cooperate Overview
• Some Compliance challenges:
 Legal compliance issue - Inspector has little or no
room for manoeuvre
 It’s not a ‘duty to agree’ - may agree to disagree
 Local plan making timetables rarely align but it
can’t be fixed retrospectively
 Duplication of effort - paperchase

8. Duty to Cooperate Overview
• Some Compliance challenges:
 Legal compliance so put on belts and braces –
proportionate?
 Political minefield – managing waste tough
enough but managing someone else's?!
 Views of neighbours count – DtC being used to
attempt to block local plans where process is
challengeable (E.g. Plymouth/Devon?)
 Is the cross boundary management of waste
always strategic?.....

9. ‘Strategic Matters’
• Section 33A P&CP Act 2004
• (3) “The activities within this subsection are
– (a) the preparation of development plan documents,
– ……so far as relating to a strategic matter.”
• (4) For the purposes of subsection (3), each of the following is a
“strategic matter”—
– use of land that has or would have a significant impact on at least
two planning areas
• use of land in a two-tier area if the development or use—
– (i) is a county matter, or
– (ii) has or would have a significant impact on a county matter.

10. ‘Strategic Priorities’
• NPPF
• Paragraph 179
– Local planning authorities are expected to work
‘collaboratively with other bodies to ensure that strategic
priorities across local authority boundaries are properly
coordinated and clearly reflected in local plans’
• Paragraph 154 sets out “strategic priorities” and
includes “waste management”

11. What makes waste management
‘strategic’?
• Waste management facilities generally have
catchments that transcend administrative
boundaries.
• Waste travels across administrative boundaries
hence ‘net self sufficiency’
• Waste produced by one community is managed in
another – but all communities should take some
responsibility
• This may result in ‘larger than local’ impacts.
• But is waste management always strategic?

12. When does waste management
become strategic?

13. DtC compliance for waste
1. Demonstrate awareness of the amount of waste arisings and
how the amount of waste produced is likely to change over
coming years
2. Understand where waste is currently going
3. Assess whether the current arrangements can continue
based on the length of existing authorisations and what
additional routes may be required.
4. Show application of the proximity principle and the waste
hierarchy
5. Show they have engaged with all authorities in receipt of
waste (now and in the future) and demonstrate the need for
waste to be transported outwith their area.
NuLeAF Report on DtC & radioactive waste

14. Case Studies: North London

15. North London Waste Plan
• Expectation in Plan that waste from London
would be landfilled elsewhere
• Little dialogue with other authorities
• Did North London Boroughs have a duty to co-operate
with the planning authorities receiving
waste?

16. North London Waste Plan
• Inspector concluded:
– waste management qualifies as a “strategic matter” for the
S33A duty
– the scale of transport “is likely to have a very significant
impact on the areas where waste received” (e.g. 100kt to
Northamptonshire, 71kt to Bedfordshire, 52kt to Essex)
– the absence of policies/proposals in NLWP to manage all
the waste arisings and the consequent continuation of the
export of waste would be likely to have a significant impact
on at least two planning areas – consequently there is a DtC

17. Identifying strategic impacts
• Should any waste movement be classed as
strategic?
• Quantity thresholds
– 5,000 or 500 tonnes?
• Does it depend on type?
– Non-hazardous or hazardous
• Should it be assessed on a relative basis? i.e. % of
waste arisings movements account for.

18. Whose impact?
Question…
• From who’s point of view?
• Is it from the dispatching WPA?
• Or from the receiving WPA?
Discuss.

19. Answer
• Level of impact on the receiving WPA
– Transport and amenity
– Availability of capacity
+
• Reliance of the exporting WPA strategy on
that movement.

20. Identifying strategic partners
• How might this be assessed?
• What are neighbours thinking?
» Check Waste Plans
» Check AMRs
» Ask them!

21. Action Flow Chart for DTC Contact
Contact
Initiated
1. Ok (‘no
impediment’ to
receipt of imports)
2. Ok for now but
capacity limited &
replacement
possible subject to
…
3. Ok for now but
insufficient capacity
over plan period &
no further expected
4. ‘No’ further
capacity available
No Response
received
If critical to planning
strategy double
check AMR, Plan &
any other info.
3 attempts to
contact:
1. Letter
2. Phone call
3. Email
Record response No
further action
required
Prepare and agree
Statement of
Cooperation with
view to agree
Position Statement
Check capacity data
sources in consent.
Cross check with
Plan & AMR.
If position confirmed
review plan strategy
to make up shortfall
Unable to confirm
data.

22. Example: Export of hazardous waste
ASK RECEIVING WPAs WHAT
THRESHOLD THEY WOULD
CONSIDER REASONABLE??

23. Example: Export of hazardous waste
DTC contact
initiated with
receiving
WPA
Q1: Is the amount being exported
into a single WPA area in excess of
100 tonnes pa?
Q2: Is the waste going to landfill?
Q3: Is the proportion of waste
managed at a single facility > 25%
of the total being from the WPA?
No DTC
contact
initiated with
receiving
WPA
Yes
No
Yes
Yes
No

24. Caveat: WDI health warning
WDI data should not to be used uncritically as:
• Not comprehensive dataset - does not include
movements to EfW.
• Movements vary from year to year.
• High level WPA numbers may not capture detail e.g.
Surrey, Epsom/Ewell + R&B.
• Some operators still do not attribute e.g. H&F
• Prone to errors – Harrow and Barrow!

25. The Duty to Cooperate-A PINS
Perspective
Brian Cook Senior Planning Inspector

26. Overview
• The Zurich Assurance judgement and some general principles that flow
from it
• How does this affect what the Inspector looks for?
• Some waste-specific matters
• A couple of examples of the issue
• Questions
Duty to Cooperate- A PINS Perspective

27. Zurich Assurance Ltd v Winchester CC & South Downs
NPA [2014] EWHC 758 (Admin)- s33A
• A housing challenge under s113 but ground 2 was about the DTC.
• See paragraphs 107 to 123; they are quite readable!
• The ‘whats’: “maximising effectiveness”; engaging “constructively,
actively and on an ongoing basis”; “strategic matter”.
• His interpretation was that how the LPA goes about doing these or
deciding what is a strategic matter is a matter for their judgement.
• In the case of decisions to be taken to meet the DTC, that a substantial
margin of discretion should be allowed by the court.
Duty to Cooperate- A PINS Perspective

28. Zurich Assurance Ltd v Winchester CC & South Downs
NPA [2014] EWHC 758 (Admin)-s20
• This is what the Inspector has to do.
• “would be reasonable to conclude” that the LPA had met the DTC.
• Any s113 challenge would be limited to a consideration of whether the
Inspector’s conclusion was reasonable.
• Good news then for both LPAs and Inspectors since the courts do not
generally interfere in matters of judgement. If decisions are rational
they should survive any challenge.
Duty to Cooperate- A PINS Perspective

29. One warning though
• The ‘persons’ with whom you must engage are set out in the 2012
Regs.
• These have been amended once with Local Nature Partnerships added.
• So, check the latest Regs!
Duty to Cooperate- A PINS Perspective

30. What is the Inspector looking for?
• Documentation, documentation, documentation!
• The DTC is closely linked with the ‘effective’ soundness test.
• In the main we respond to representations rather than look for
problems.
• We are generally sceptical of representations that there has been a
failure to meet the DTC. Being unhappy with the outcome of the DTC
process does not necessarily mean the process was flawed.
• We will wish to explore that represention either at an exploratory
meeting if it looks to have substance or at the examination hearings if it
is really a soundness issue.
Duty to Cooperate- A PINS Perspective

31. Specifically for Waste Plans
• What did Regional Strategies do for us?
• The heavy lifting on waste data and apportionments and the pattern of
waste management facilities to deal with it.
• Paragraphs 2 and 3 of the consultation draft revised PPS10 require this
to be done at WPA level.
• In particular 2nd bullet of paragraph 2 and bullets 3, 4 and 5 (explicitly)
of paragraph 3 mean through the DTC.
Duty to Cooperate- A PINS Perspective

32. Issues for the DTC process
• How are different waste streams managed in your wider area?
• Will those patterns continue or does a new pattern need to be planned
for?
• What are others doing about that?
• Is strategic capacity, like landfill, running down and if so where is the
replacement going to be and how will that be determined?
• Are officer groupings and broad agreements (if reached) matched at
political level?
Duty to Cooperate- A PINS Perspective

33. Two specific examples
• Low level and very low level radioactive waste arising from
decommissioning; understand your facility’s place in its estate and the
NDA’s strategy.
• Green Belt. If proposing sites in the GB in two-tier areas, is the District
Council committed to the necessary boundary review?
Duty to Cooperate- A PINS Perspective

34. Meeting the Duty in Hampshire
Presentation for Waste Plans and the Duty PAS event
by Hampshire County Council
Lisa Kirby – Project Manager (Planning Policy)
11 September 2014

35. The presentation
• When we considered the duty
• How we did it
• Key issues considered
• Who
• How this was considered at examination
• Lessons learnt
• Consideration post adoption

36. When….
• The Hampshire Minerals & Waste Plan (HMWP) had
already been submitted by the time the duty came in
• Considered pre- examination (April – May 2012)
• Reviewed mid- examination (February 2013)

37. How….
• Partnership working
• Vary methods of engagement documented – phone, written, letters,
position statement, meetings, engagement
• Prepared document on collaborative working documenting:
– Main areas where we sought to work collaboratively with other planning
authorities and organisations
– The key issues considered
– Who was engaged and why
– How and when this took place
– How this influenced policy development
– Examples of correspondences on key issues

38. How….
Consultee How engaged When Issues engaged Why Key and notable
actions
East
Hampshire
DC
• Meetings
• Written correspondences
• Development Plans Group
• HCC / LPA updates
27/03/2009
1/10/2010
29/07/2011
12/12/2012
29/01/2013
14/03/2013
• Vision and spatial
strategy
• Safeguarding
• Local land won
aggregate
• Silica sand
• Location of waste
management uses
• So vision / spatial
strategy would take
into account any
planned
development
• Due to resources
safeguarding issues /
requirements
• Due to location of
potential minerals
and waste
safeguarded sites
• Due to potential
location of waste
sites
• Vision took into
account planned
development in
EHDC
• Recognition that
mineral resource
safeguarding would
not impede
development of
Eco-town
• Development of
policies
• Inclusion of
minerals or waste
infrastructure on
safeguarding list
• Eco town
partnership to
consider
safeguarding issues
through
Masterplanning

39. Key issues
• Partnership working
• All issues relating to plan policies considered
• Highlight how discussions had influenced policy
development
• Demonstrated how constructive, active and
ongoing engagement was achieved
• Prioritised some issues due to importance
– minerals safeguarding
– land won aggregates and sites
– wharves and rail depots
– waste sites

40. Who….
• Hampshire’s District and Boroughs
• Adjoining LPAs and MWPAs and other MWPAs
Statutory consultees (EA, NE, EH)
• Aggregate working party
• SEWAG
• Public sector: PCTs
• Minerals and waste industry (including trade
organisations)
• Port operators
• Other interested parties

41. Consideration at examination
• Record of collaborative working submitted in advance of examination
• Question asked by Inspector:
‘Have the Hampshire Authorities carried out the duty to co-operate in the
preparation of the Plan (Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004 (as
amended), Section 33A)? How has this duty been fulfilled?’
• Only industry questioned the authorities consideration of the duty

42. Consideration at examination
• Inspectors Report:
‘I conclude that the Hampshire Authorities have worked collaboratively with other
authorities and bodies and have co-operated effectively through a continuous period of
engagement. The Local Planning Authorities have fulfilled the duty to co-operate with
regard to the Hampshire Minerals and Waste Plan’.

43. Lessons learnt
• Consider at all stages in the process and document
• Target key issues of importance of the plan and set out why, how and
what measures you took to engage - highlight if you set thresholds for
engagement
• Explore all avenues to negotiate out any differences If this cannot be
achieved make sure it is clearly documented
• Documenting helps to remind officers about the evolution of policies

44. Consideration post adoption
• Process now at basis of all planning policy work post adoption
– DtC responses to other MWPAs
– Response to MCA consultations
– Co-ordinated data sharing and analysis (e.g. SEWPAG)
– LAA
• Involvement in working groups
• Will be imbedded in the through preparation of SPGs planned

45. Waste and the Duty to Cooperate
Rob Murfin
Director, Planning Officers Society
Head of Planning, Derbyshire County Council

46. or
“Waste Planning -
is it still about the same things?”
Rob Murfin
Director, Planning Officers Society
Head of Planning, Derbyshire County Council

47. Introduction

48. Todays Aims -
• Wider DtC meltdown context (last week)*
• Not academic analysis on DtC
• Not legal or “its not a Duty to Agree” review
• WPAs/LPAs navigating DtC and related growth
issues
*15 years

49. Not academic – but be clear about waste
planning
“On the Method of Theoretical Physics” the Herbert
Spencer Lecture, Oxford, 10/06/1933
Popularised Einstein’s much-quoted –
“everything should be as simple as
possible, but not simpler”

50. Current Context -
• Post 2011 made housing like waste
• WPA’s required to provide sufficient opportunities to
meet identified needs
• Objectively assessed needs vs constraint based
“harm” planning (DtC/5 yr smokescreen)
Topical Key messages -
• Consumption vs operational network WMH thinking
• Its economic development AND economic
infrastructure

51. Nuts and Bolts of Waste DtC
• Range of objective approaches needed
• Peer review/critical friend useful
• Link with growth agenda and political buy in
• Set out DtC assumptions unambiguously
• Waste commonly leapfrogs WPA’s but “towards
total capacity for total waste streams” must be
assumption #1.

52. #1 “Strategic working” DtC
• Historic work via RTABS on cross border
movements/ strategic facilities.
• Key requirement in PPS10/RSS
• Since RSS abolition majority WPA’s in informal
“RTABy” arrangements
• PINS accept as import step in DTC

53. East Midlands Strategic DtC
• Post-RTAB group - East Midlands Strategic Waste
Advisory Group (EMSWAG)
• Strong links with West Midlands Resource Technical
Advisory Body (WMRTAB)
I. Waste plan methodology
II. Strategic sites identification
III. Major cross border movements
IV. “Nominal Waste Capacity Model Lite” (with EA).

54. Enough cooperation?
• Allows WPA’s to engage on waste data methodologies
(trad. bugbears of double count etc)
• Benefits – consistency & technical understanding
• DtC “tick”
• But not sufficient - no political buy in, no agreement
– just passive audit
*Single Regional Strategy
– maybe (political, statutory, mass balance + economics)

55. #2 Scoping tier below strategic data
• Don’t use ad-hoc knowledge
• Need detailed scope of cross border
movements.
• Movements constantly move - time series is
key - PPG10/PPS10 - “significant and
durable”
Start with
Environment Agency Waste Data Interrogator

56. Benefits…
• Tool widely used by WPAs
• It is updated – progressively since 2006
• Framework data position – all areas can be
compared without further primary research.
• You can do DtC “to people”
• Get EA to check you have used properly –
(some examples of misuse)

57. IMPORTS to DERBYSHIRE (tpa)
Nottinghamshire 107,424
Other East Midlands (not codeable) 90,205
Lancashire 40,844
Sheffield 36,986
Leicestershire 35,566
North East (nc) 35,000
London (nc) 27,156
Nottingham 21,563
Yorks and Humber (nc) 11,315
South Yorkshire (nc) 9,213

58. Lincolnshire 7,586
Solihull 7,431
Scotland 6,091
Middlesbrough 4,916
Northern Ireland 4,500
Redcar and Cleveland 4,396
Leeds 4,014
Doncaster 3,891
Slough 3,644
Rotherham 3,315
Northamptonshire 3,194
West Midlands (nc) 2,751
Wales (nc) 2,600
Bristol 2,488
Norfolk 2,330
Cheshire East 2,126

59. Cambridgeshire 1,934
Cheshire (nc) 1,811
Wiltshire 1,697
Oxfordshire 1,605
Kent 1,558
Sandwell 1,461
Warwickshire 1,446
Shropshire 1,444
County Durham 1,404
North East
Lincolnshire 1,263
Swansea 1,256
Cheshire West and
Chester 1,251
Merseyside (nc) 1,148

60. Northumberland 1,112
Milton Keynes 1,075
Newcastle upon Tyne 1,038
Peterborough 1,035
WPA not codeable 606,543
Total 1,110,626

61. Basic Interrogator Info..
• Significant proportion “not codeable”
• Waste where origin > destination is unclear
• Due to discrepancy in returns or “milk rounds”
• Amount of un-codeable waste within EA datasets
decreasing
• Improvement overall picture but good enough?

62. Next Steps
• Imports vs exports shows Derbyshire imports more (1.1
mt) than it exports (930 kt)
• Exports still important – not landfill/single approach
• Contacted WPA’s receiving 1,000 tonnes+ waste to
identify and agree a number of key questions.
• 1,000t limit was used to determine a “strategic”
movement relationship (Used by NCC and found sound)

63. • Contacted via WPA letter and telephone call
• Established availability into plan period.
• Additional focus - strategic sites within 50 miles
• Additional private sector discussion
• (No response received identified any reason why the
capacity will not continue to be available.)
• Full details of all attempts/responses contained within
the waste data evidence base
• Null response means question about capacity
assumption to be reflected in gap analysis

64. A word for Counties (DtC with yourself)
• NPPF “in two tier areas County and District councils
should cooperate with each other”
• Historic District resistance to all waste development and
argument of negative economic impact
(MS Headquarters scenario)
• Some districts DtC “no sites suitable or no need”
• Let them decide (light, any or none)
• However; change – econometrics, employment land
and restructuring.

65. Learning from the Housing DtC fail
- the perfect storm

66. LEPS and growth/economic change
…(more DtC with yourself)
Basic Waste DtC approach risks missing out -
• Above trend economic growth in adjoining areas
• Government/HCA drive for housing growth
• Changes to waste management from technology
advances, market segmentation and market
opportunity from new legislation and the WMH

67. LEPs - Anything to do with Waste Planning?
STRATEGIC ECONOMIC PLAN
“By 2023 we will”
• Deliver 55,000 new jobs in the private sector
• Accelerate delivery of 77,000 new homes
• Increase our business base
• Share benefits of growth across communities
> FSB / LPA view of this?

69. Economics
• Paradigm shift in data needed. As much effort as
on those flood risk assessments?
• Reasonable to ask objectors (including other
LPAs) to at least try to quantify alleged negative
economic impact of development
– it is easier to say than do

70. Building block initial suggestions..
• Population & Household projections
• Employment/Econometric forecasts
• LEP SEP job/housing lift
• Implications for infrastructure of potential strategic
mixed use sites
• Understand objective need, not just expressed
demand

71. The Future of
PLACES
LATENT
DEMAND
EXPRESSED
DEMAND
GROWTH
ASPIRATION
FUTURE
WASTE
KIT?

72. Strategic Spatial Statements of
Cooperation
• Get involved in the process
• You may have to push hard
• Get waste accepted as economic growth,
infrastructure and resilience issue
• Reflect evidence in the waste plan approach
• Use as another DtC vehicle

73. Prepare document on collaborative
working -
– Areas of collaborative working with other WPAs/LPAs
and other organisations
– Why these were engaged
– Key issues considered
– How and when this took place
– How this influenced policy development
– Examples of correspondences on key issues

74. Future DtC Issues?
• Still on-going shift from “destructive collection
& disposal”
• Even further segmentation – see EA state of
nation reports
• Links to other environmental drivers – e.g.
nitrate loading and agricultural wastes.
• Stronger growth link (enabler and component).
SWAG group within LEP/CA to capture
economic importance?

75. Main Conclusions/Lessons
• Consider at all stages of plan and document
• Relationship management!
• Documenting helps clarify evolution of policies
• Clarity of DtC assumptions, esp thresholds
• Target key issues and set out why, how and what
measures you took to engage
• Political buy in / briefing – new emphasis
• Respond via gap analysis
• Understanding economics and growth

76. Meeting the challenge

77. Managing the Politics
• Explain the issues
• Address fears
– Visits to modern facilities
– Benefits of waste management
• Avoid elections!
• All reasonable measures
• Manage your own expectations!

78. Tools available
• Statements of common ground;
• Memoranda of understanding;
• Duty to Cooperate Statement
Again, proving you have done all you can…

79. Memoranda of Understanding
• Useful to demonstrate wider cooperation
within a ‘region’ or ‘sub-region’
• May be produced by TABs e.g. SEWPAG
• Set out common issues that need addressing
(see abolished RSS!)
• Check appropriate spatial geographies - are
historical ones still relevant?

80. Statements of Common Ground
• For one to exist there has to have been
cooperation of some kind!
• What’s agreed
• What’s not agreed (N.B. Its not a Duty to agree!)

81. Duty to Cooperate Statements – a word
from our sponsor
• Whatever is decided it will be important to
provide a written explanation to PINs of:
What the strategic issues are
What has been done jointly with which partners to
address them;
Why; and
What the outcome of this was.
See more at: http://www.pas.gov.uk/web/pas-test-site/strategicplanning/-
/journal_content/56/332612/3603707/ARTICLE#sthash.7x530GcQ.dup
.

82. Duty to Cooperate Statements
• Evidence base that demonstrates compliance
• Published with the Plan at Reg 19 stage
• What is proportionate?
• Examples….

83. What Does One Look like?
Consultee How engaged When Issues engaged Why Key and notable
actions
East
Hampshire
DC
• Meetings
• Written correspondences
• Development Plans Group
• HCC / LPA updates
27/03/2009
1/10/2010
29/07/2011
12/12/2012
29/01/2013
14/03/2013
• Vision and spatial
strategy
• Safeguarding
• Local land won
aggregate
• Silica sand
• Location of waste
management
uses
• So vision / spatial
strategy would
take into account
any planned
development
• Due to resources
safeguarding
issues /
requirements
• Due to location of
potential minerals
and waste
safeguarded sites
• Due to potential
location of waste
sites
• Vision took into
account planned
development in
EHDC
• Recognition that
mineral resource
safeguarding
would not impede
development of
Eco-town
• Development of
policies
• Inclusion of
minerals or waste
infrastructure on
safeguarding list
• Eco town
partnership to
consider
safeguarding
issues through
Masterplanning

84. 2012
East Sussex, South Downs and Brighton &
Hove Waste and Minerals Plan…

85. • Original statement
• 12 Pages
– “the Authorities evidence of having cooperated to plan for issues with
cross-boundary impacts within the Waste and Minerals Plan.”
• Representations received due to proposed export to LF
• Response to Inspector’s request
– 146 pages
– Included additional details and considered implications arising from the
Inspector’s conclusions on the North London Waste Plan.
• Inspector’s conclusions
– SEWPAG provides continuity of well-established collaboration
– And a fundamental co-operation between bodies engaged in planning
at a strategic level
– Noted specific liaison with other Waste Planning Authorities within and
beyond the south-east

86. 2013
West Sussex Waste Local Plan …

87. • Original Statement
– 40 pages
– Set out compliance with the DtC “for those issues which have an
impact beyond the boundaries of the plan area.”
– And, arrangements in place to ensure ongoing engagement – “will be
updated as new information becomes available.”
• Representations
– Provision for non-inert landfill inadequate - unreasonable reliance on
capacity in other areas assumed (Subsequently accepted that rep
related to soundness not a failure to co-operate)
– Potential non-inert landfill in- County capacity ignored
• Inspector’s conclusions
– “ample evidence of the steps to which the Authorities have gone to
engage constructively, actively and on an ongoing basis”
– active members of the South East Waste Planning Advisory Group
(SEWPAG)

88. 2014
Devon Waste Core Strategy…

89. • Original Statement - 21 Pages
• Contents:
– 1.Introduction
– 2.The Devon Context
– 3.Cooperation with Greater Devon Waste Planning Authorities
– 4.Cooperation with Waste Planning Authorities Outside Greater Devon
– 5.Cooperation with Devon’s District Planning Authorities
– 6.Cooperation with Other Relevant Organisations
– Appendix A - Duty to Cooperate Bodies
– Appendix B - Meetings with Greater Devon and Adjoining WPAs
– Appendix C - Minutes of Meeting with Plymouth City Council (PCC)
• 43 Page Addendum in light of representation from PCC
– PCC raised an objection on the grounds that the duty to cooperate has not
been fulfilled.
» Watch this space…….

90. A word about LEPs
• A prescribed body that must be engaged
• Any engagement in waste plans??
• Strategic Economic Plans
• Growth Deals
– E.g. SELEP SEP and Growth Deal
• Waste, circular economy - ‘no results found’
• Not to be ignored (but they may ignore you!)

91. Is the DtC hurdle getting higher?

92. PAS Lessons Learned – 2014 Update
‘Doing Your Duty’, PAS, 2014 update:
http://www.pas.gov.uk/documents/332612/6289673/Doing+your+duty+updatev3/cad06b72-5b67-4b38-9732-
6600dfa291f9
The process of cooperation
• The duty is about good strategic planning based on co-operation
• The onus is on the submitting authority to demonstrate effective
cooperation
• Start discussions early and carry on
• Decisions need to reflect the evidence
• Be rigorous, pro-active and persistent
• Engagement needs to be constructive
• Ensure partnership arrangements are fit for purpose
• Work with new partnerships in strategic planning
• The plan is tested on how it was prepared – not future arrangements

93. PAS Lessons Learned – 2014 Update
Evidence
• Plans should reflect joint working and cooperation to address
larger than local issues
• Plans need to reflect Housing Market Assessments and
contribute to the objectively assessed needs of the wider
market area (apply to waste management)
• Have an audit trail of cooperation to demonstrate outcomes
Other lessons
• There is a need for corporate and member support and
resourcing
• Identify strategic priorities

94. Lessons learnt - Hampshire
• Consider at all stages in the process and document
• Target key issues of importance of the plan and set out why,
how and what measures you took to engage - highlight if you
set thresholds for engagement
• Explore all avenues to negotiate out any differences If this
cannot be achieved make sure it is clearly documented
• Documenting helps to remind officers about the evolution of
policies

95. Track Record
26 waste plans submitted post
implementation of the DtC with just
1 found unsound! (and 1 withdrawn)

96. Factors Affecting DtC in Future
• Tougher test of ongoing engagement??
• Current system – tweaked not torn up
• Increasing role of LEPs in planning
• More unitary authorities?
• Longer distance waste movements as waste
becomes logistics exercise
• Increasing weight of Strategic Economic Growth
Plans

97. DtC as an ongoing Activity
• The aim is to encourage positive, continuous partnership
working on issues that go beyond a single local planning
authority’s area.
• All local planning authorities must give details of what
action they have taken to comply with the duty in their local
Authority Monitoring Reports at least once a year.
• This should include:
 details of the actions to both secure the effective
cooperation of others ;and
 respond constructively to requests for cooperation.
 It should also highlight the outcomes of cooperation.
National Planning Practice Guidance

98. Final word from Citizen’s Advice
• “Many people find it useful to first speak to their neighbour. This
gives the best chance of resolving the dispute and remaining on
good terms. You could invite your neighbour for a coffee and a chat
rather than discussing the issue on the doorstep.
• If you think that one or both of you will get angry or upset during a
meeting, it may be helpful to write a letter. It is useful to keep a copy
of any letter sent.
• Whichever way you chose to contact you neighbour make sure that
you state your case simply and clearly. Avoid being emotional. Be
polite even if you are frustrated, angry or upset. Stick to the facts.”

99. Existing Strategic Planning/Duty
materials
• A simple guide to strategic planning and the
duty to co-operate
• Ten Golden Rules for Effective Strategic
Planning
• Making Strategic Planning Happen
• Case study: East Sussex
• Case Study: Coastal West Sussex
• NuLeAF Report on DtC & radioactive waste

100. Forthcoming PAS activity
• Duty to co-operate case study
• Duty to co-operate events
Are you ready to do your duty
and cooperate?
London
Bristol
Birmingham
Leeds
London
14 October
23 October
6 November
13 November
18 November
• Duty to co-operate support
– Peer review health check (half day)
– In house support (longer, more in depth)