By Brett Spiller MRTPI of Chapman Lily Planning
Chapman Lily Planning listened carefully to our clients (developers, promoters and landowners) very real concerns about the direction of the emerging Bournemouth, Christchurch and Poole [“BCP”] Local Plan. They felt that the Plan would frustrate housebuilding and supress household formations with profound social and economic consequences (more on this later). Their concerns resonated with my professional view that the draft (Regulation 19) plan was not only unambitious, but actually regressive.
We felt the best way to make it clear to BCP that there was a huge groundswell of real concern, was to act in unity and we put forward the idea of a consortium response which included the major developers in the BCP area – those companies that actually turn council plans into buildings. We were pleased when AJC Group, Bellway Homes, Fortitudo, Miller Homes, WH White and Wyatt Homes came on board. Collectively they deliver a significant proportion of new homes in BCP and neighbouring Dorset, albeit their land interests and products are diverse – which proved a real strength and demonstrates the depth of the concern across the industry. They include regeneration schemes (often apartment led), residential led urban developments of varying density, through to mixed-use urban extensions on green field (often former Green Belt) land. This broad representation avoided polarised representations and allowed a wider industry view to be projected, thereby adding credibility, and raising a clear red flag of concern.
The consortium was also supported by the LPDF owing to the wider interest and a plethora of smaller developers. Other developers and promoters were invited to join but decided to ‘paddle their own canoe’ or not get involved, which I totally understand and respect. However, they remained in close contact with us, as did the HBF.
The Submission Local Plan is currently at Examination under transitional arrangements. The Part 1 Hearing sessions closed in late January, and we keenly await the Inspectors findings. This article is a reflection on the process and experience of assembling and managing a consortium, and the benefits derived. Whilst I express my opinions about the effectiveness of a consortium approach, its performance might ultimately be judged by the Inspectors findings – so expect a follow up article!
Our approach
Chapman Lily Planning alerted its clients to the draft consultation documents (published as part of Committee Papers) ahead of the start of the Regulation 19 consultation. This allowed us to make best use of the limited lead in time to the formal consultation period and gauge interest in forming a consortium. I should emphasise that none of the parties were predisposed to object ahead of seeing the Committee Papers, so this initial mobilisation period was critical.
I shouldn’t underplay the time spent, nor importance, in explaining the benefits of the consortium approach and ensuring that all parties were comfortable with the idea. It takes a lot of trust, good will and understanding. Knowing the individual motivations each company is key – particularly when seeking agreement to a more substantial budget, as was the case here.
We were quick to establish the remit, scope of works and resources. Early agreement was reached on (i) the focus, that being the fundamental strategic issues of common interest (ii) an evidence-based approach (iii) the need for effective communications, and (iv) a fixed budget. This was refined following the Submission of the Plan and sight of the Inspectors Matters, Issues and Questions for the Part 1 Examination Hearing Sessions.
Fundamental strategic issues of common interest
We collectively scoped in concerns over deficiencies in the Duty to Co-operate, bias in the Sustainability Appraisal and insufficient housing provision. I was pleased to see these matters remained front and centre at the Part 1 Examination, suggesting that we got the scope of work right! One might even hope that the substance of our submission, fuelled the Inspectors curiosity and lines of questioning!
Importantly, at the Reg 19 stage, we also scoped out other matters, which whilst having merit, risked diluting the consortiums common interest or might otherwise prove a distraction from the fundamental strategic issues. For instance, matters such as the trajectory and whole plan viability could be pursued on an individual basis where needed. We were resolute in sticking to the agreed fundamental strategic issues of common interest, even when other opportunities to collaborate on secondary issues were tabled.
By way of background: BCP is the second most populated conurbation in the southwest. It is still operating under three legacy plans. The prospect of a single new local plan was welcomed by all, albeit not at any cost – the consortium strongly contested the notion that ‘any plan is better than no plan’. However, BCP Council decided to take forward a Local Plan that only meets 57% of the housing need arising from the standard method accompanying the NPPF December 2023 and 54% of those under the revised standard method accompanying the NPPF December 2024. BCP Council sought to justify this lower figure on the basis of demographic anomalies and environmental constraints. Because of political ‘turbulence’ the reliance of the two arms of this twin tracked approach had shifted over time, raising questions over potential unmet housing need and duty to co-operate. BCP Council were also clear that they had chosen not to allocate any Green Belt sites as was ‘their right’ under the NPPF December 2023.
An evidence-based approach
All of the consortium members brought in-depth local knowledge to the table and contributed in various ways to the evidence base – there were no passive observers!
We were not precious about ringfencing the work underpinning representations; Rather we set about briefing and commissioning experts in their field that added to our core planning narrative. Pegasus helpfully acted as a sounding board on approach, Turley’s critiqued the alleged demographic anomalies and considered the economic consequences of insufficient housing provision, Tetlow King considered the social consequences of insufficient housing provision, including the impact on affordable housing delivery. In my opinion, the technical team performed admirably and with great integrity. The quality and depth of the evidence presented really came into its own at the Examination and quickly differentiated the consortium from others who were more reliant on generalised statements / experience / anecdotal comment. The evidence made the social and economic consequences of insufficient housing all the more compelling.
Effective communications
Within the consortium, we adopted robust project management disciplines, with regular project team meetings, setting milestones, the sharing of information and production of draft reports.
Externally, we harnessed the legal knowledge and advocacy skills of Chris Young KC. Chris provided Written Opinions in support of the Consortiums Reg19 representations and advocacy at the Examination. His ability to eloquently and succinctly respond to the Inspectors questions quickly galvanised the room. He was also able to draw upon an extensive knowledge of case law, recent Examination proceedings and Inspectors decisions – crucial, given the pace of change experienced within the preceding three months.
I have no doubt that the ability to present evidence on behalf of a consortium adds credibility, avoids duplication and saves time at an Examination – in itself making the points more effective. Being able to draw upon an in-depth evidence base also adds to the quality of debate.
Budget
With such a diverse range of companies, all with differing portfolios and exposure to BCP, it was important to set early budget expectations and stick to them.
This was critical, as we acted as banker and were able to commission other technical consultants apace!
Fortunately, there was a high degree of trust between the parties and individual representatives, without which this could have been a more foreboding task. All of the members recognised that they would not have been able to justify the cost of instructing such detailed technical work and engage a leading KC on their own – however, working collaboratively, this became entirely possible.
Final reflections
The consortium comprised trusted, well-informed clients and the project team seasoned professionals. This made for a smooth process.
Agreeing at the onset, a clear remit, scope of works and budget is essential.
Adopt a collaborative approach to evidence gathering, drawing upon specialist expertise where required, adds significant value.
In my opinion, a consortium comprising broad representation of interested parties can play well to Inspectors – it adds credibility and delivers efficiency at the Examination. From a client perspective, it is cost effective and adds significant weight to the argument.
From a professional perspective, it was extremely gratifying to see our concerns properly aired and taken into account. In particular to see the Inspectors grasp the information before them and use it in their lines of questioning.
Whilst we still await the Inspectors findings, I was buoyed by the fact that the representatives of the companies making up the consortium took the time to follow up and thank Chapman Lily Planning for its work in establishing and co-ordinating the consortium. Indeed, there is even talk of future collaborations which I look forward too!
