You might have expected this article to be about the increased emphasis placed on cross-boundary cooperation between local authorities highlighted in the National Planning Policy Framework.  It is not!

Instead this is a ‘wake up call’ to the development industry to fully engage with the plan and policy making part of the planning system to make sure that business interests are properly taken into account.

At the present time, with the economy still suffering from the effects of the credit crunch, tough decisions are inevitably made about funding anything but the essentials.  However there is a way forward that can be effective both in terms of both cost and results - form a consortium!  A collective view of developers and landowners carries considerably more weight than a number of individual representations, and can be also undertaken at a substantially reduced cost.

I know from direct personal experience of working with consortiums at both strategic and local level that they can work particularly well on policy issues which affect a whole development sector, for example, the Mayor of London’s policies on affordable housing, and housing design standards.  A number of large development companies, who together represented a substantial proportion of the delivery of housing in London, formed a consortium to challenge policies in the draft London Plan.  This proved effective in creating a proper dialogue with the Mayor’s officers on many issues and had positive outcomes in the recommendations made by the Examination in Public Panel. A number of these also made it into the final adopted Plan.

At a more local level mounting a challenge to housing numbers being proposed in a Local Plan can be a costly and time consuming task.  Since the abolition of Regional Guidance, the setting of housing numbers is once more a local matter which needs to be supported by both robust and objective evidence.  Experience shows that opponents of growth are often far more organised and effective than proponents, who too often become marginalised by site-specific objectives, rather than the general need for development.  A much more effective case can be assembled if there is collaboration between a number of parties. For example, I successfully set up a consortium of developers to challenge the housing numbers being proposed by St Albans District Council. Joint funding of the running of the Chelmer forecasting model provides the robust evidence needed to persuade the Inspector to reject the Council’s proposed housing figure in favour of a higher amount.  It is more cost efficient, and has greater impact when a number of parties are delivering the same message.

Another area where joint challenges will be more effective is where Councils are preparing a Community Infrastructure Levy (CIL) for their borough or district.  The Government’s regulations for CIL set out the test that an independent examiner should take into account when assessing the proposed levy. The key test for any challenge by an interested party is set out in regulation 14, and is essentially to strike an appropriate balance between a) the desirability of funding from CIL and, b) the potential effects of CIL on the economic viability of development across its area.

The chances of success in challenging a draft schedule will be greatly improved if they are seen as representing a substantial number of interests.  Also joint funding would result in a larger pot of potentially available resources to fund a challenge.

The CPRE are somewhat ironically the best example of an organised consortium functioning within the property industry.  They are essentially a collective of individual and local interests, but with a common goal, which is often powerfully radiated at the national, regional and local level.  Supporters of the CPRE typically have neither the financial means or influence to engage on an individual basis.  However, by working together, they often have a mouthpiece, and therefore influence, on numerous planning and development issues – the NPPF being a case in point.  Fundamentally, it makes sound business sense to engage in consultation processes and the most effective means of achieving this is through joint working in Consortiums.  There should therefore be an in-built ‘duty to cooperate’ amongst those in the development industry likely to be affected by those issues discussed above.

If you would like any further advice on the benefits of Consortiums, please contact Iceni Projects.