Preparing a local development plan for submission: guidance for local planning authorities

The purpose of this guidance is to provide practical advice to local planning authorities (LPA) preparing to submit a local development plan (LDP) for examination. It summarises what documents are or are not required to be submitted for examination and provides guidance as to what information those documents should contain. Following the advice in this guidance will help to ensure that the initial stages of the examination progress as smoothly and as quickly as possible

Further guidance in relation to the examination process is set out in: 

• The Town and Country Planning (Local Development Plan) (Wales) Regulations 2005, available on Legislation.gov.uk
• Development Plans Manual
• Local development plan examinations: procedural guidance
• Local development plan examinations: guidance for programme officers

Prior to submitting an LDP for examination, an LPA will enter into a Service Level Agreement (SLA) with PEDW. This document will identify the actions and commitments to which both parties will adhere during the examination. 

The SLA will include a list of documents which the LPA must submit prior to an Inspector to conduct the examination being appointed. Guidance in relation to submission requirements is set out in section 2 of Local development plan examinations: procedural guidance.

Alongside the submission documents, LPAs will be required to produce and submit a statement which provides a detailed response to the preliminary questions (PQs) contained in Appendix 2 of Local development plan examinations: procedural guidance.

Immediately following submission of the LDP, PEDW will undertake a screening exercise to ascertain whether the LDP production process meets the procedural tests, using the standard proforma attached at Appendix 2. LPAs may wish to undertake a self-assessment using this proforma: while not required, this may speed up the validation process. 

To assist the Inspector with the management and organisation of the examination, LPAs are required to appoint a Programme Officer (PO) prior to the submission of the plan. Advice about the role and responsibility of a PO during LDP examination is contained in Local development plan examinations: guidance for programme officers.

Each document submitted for examination should have a unique reference number. There may be no need to catalogue different types of documents in different ways; a simple ‘SD’ identifier (for ‘Submission Document’) is usually sufficient. Initial documents submitted for examination form the basis of the Examination Library, but additional documents will be added during the course of the examination. 

The LPA should set up an Examination Website in advance of submission. Detailed guidance in relation to the design and contents of examination website is provided in Local development plan examinations: guidance for programme officers. In summary, the Website should be easily accessible and include a landing page which should include details of the appointer Inspector, the name and contact details for the PO, a ‘latest news’ section and provides access to the examination library which should contain documents in relation to the submission, examination, matters arising changes and adoption. In addition, the Website should make clear that the PO will provide assistance to anyone having difficulties accessing examination documents online.

Model forms for gathering representations at Deposit and Focussed Changes stages, and for plan revisions, are available here. 

Copies of the original, unredacted representations (from the Deposit and Focussed Changes consultations) must be submitted in electronic format for the examination. Only one hard copy of each individual or group’s representation should be provided. For plan revisions, all duly made representations should be submitted, but the LPA should identify any representations that it considers are not relevant to the proposed revisions.

LPAs should liaise with PEDW about the approach to be taken to the organisation of representations prior to submission. Representations need not be ordered by policy: if a single letter or response touches on a number of different issues, multiple copies will not be required. The LPA may wish to prepare an Excel spreadsheet identifying the parts of the plan to which each representation. A template Excel spreadsheet for the representation register is available here.

Regulation 22(2)(d) requires LPAs to submit a copy of all deposit representations. However, PEDW’s view is that there is no need to submit any representation that has formally been withdrawn by that stage. LPAs may, however, wish to leave the representation on the database, annotated to make clear that it has been withdrawn. 

As part of the Consultation Report, the LPA must provide a summary a summary of the main issues and representations made and include recommendations as to how the LPA considers each representation should be addressed. To meet this requirement, PEDW recommends that the Consultation Report incorporates a series of ‘main issues’ schedules, each of which: 

• Names the main issue and the related parts of the plan,
  • Lists the reference numbers and names of the relevant representors,
  • Includes a summary of specific matters raised in the representations which relate to the main issue, and
  • Includes the LPA’s reasons (generally expressed in less than 800 words per main issue) for recommending no change to the plan or for recommending a Focussed Change to make the plan sound. 

A template for a main issues schedule is provided in Appendix 3. 

Separately, Regulation 22(2)(c) requires the Consultation Report to identify how the LPA recommends each representation should be addressed. PEDW recommends that a spreadsheet appended to the Consultation Report is the most practical way to meet this requirement. The LPA’s response to each representation should be included in the template for the representations register (template available here). 

Careful consideration should be given to all representations which may have soundness implications. A reasoned response to significant representations may avoid the need to provide further written representations during the examination. This response will be important in determining the ‘main issues’ and whether amendments are required to address soundness issues. 

• Consultation Reports should give good reasons for not including alternative or additional allocations proposed by representors. Key considerations are likely to include how a site fits with the LDP’s overall strategy and deliverability. Including this level of detail will help the Inspector and promoters to understand why a site is not allocated and should save LPAs time in preparing for the examination. 

The policies and allocations in the LDP should flow from the evidence, rather than it being collected retrospectively. The evidence base should be both proportionate and relevant. LPAs should not submit evidence which does not inform the content of the plan. The examining Inspector will only scrutinise evidence submitted for examination if required, for example if it appears that evidence is absent, flawed, out-of-date or at variance from the plan. 

Do not assume that the Inspector will have an understanding of background local matters. Important evidence may therefore include documentation attached to planning permissions or appeal decisions, evidence supporting an existing or proposed regeneration strategy, sources of funding, or corporate initiatives that may have a bearing on the LDP. 

Background or topic papers can provide helpful context on key issues. They should elaborate on the LDP’s supporting text to explain, as succinctly as possible, how the evidence has informed the policy and why the proposed approach is sound. LPAs should not use background papers themselves as evidence, but rather as an aid to the examination process. Background papers are unlikely to be required for all policies: they should only be necessary for the main issues which are likely to be the focus of discussion at hearing sessions. 

To assist LPAs in preparing for the submission of LDPs for examination, PEDW offers ‘advisory meetings’. The aim of the advisory meeting is to assist LPAs to prepare effectively for the examination process. The meetings are usually held 4 to 6 weeks before submission. The meetings are informal discussions chaired by an experienced Inspector on a without prejudice basis. In the interests of impartiality, Inspectors who conduct advisory visits on a plan would not be subsequently appointed to examine it.

LPAs who wish to schedule an advisory meeting should contact PEDW at their earliest convenience to discuss arrangements.

The LPA will provide

One paper copy of

1. The Deposit LDP (including the proposals maps)
2. Where the plan subject to examination includes Focussed Changes, a Composite LDP (including any amended proposals maps) showing the focussed changes as ‘track changes’

Please Note: A supplementary copy of the documents listed in this section may be required in the event that an additional Inspector is appointed.

One electronic copy of 

1. All representations received under Regulation 18 and, where applicable, on the Focussed Changes;
2. A spreadsheet (or similar format), formatted to be read alongside the consultation report, which records each representation received and summarises how the LPA recommends the representation should be addressed. The spreadsheet should include the names and contact details for each representor, and record whether they wish to be heard during the examination. The spreadsheet should also record the ‘main issue’ from the representation, and be sortable by this field; this will help to form the basis of a programme of hearings. Template available here. 

Please Note: It is not necessary to include representations which have been withdrawn prior to submission.

All other documents must be made available on the examination website by the point of submission. PEDW may request certain Evidence Base documents be provided in paper copy for the use of the Inspector. The LPA should liaise with PEDW about this in advance of submission. However, all documents must be made available via the LPA’s examination website:

1. Any schedule of focussed changes;
2. The final reports of the Sustainability Appraisal (SA) incorporating Strategic Environmental Assessment (SEA) and Habitats Regulations Assessment;
3. The Delivery Agreement incorporating the Community Involvement Scheme (CIS);
4. All the documents that comprise the core Evidence Base.  A complete Evidence Base must be available at the time of submission.
5. The candidate sites register (where applicable);
6. Any statements of common ground agreed between the LPA and substantive objectors;
7. Any schedule identifying minor changes to the Deposit LDP (or, where an adopted plan is being revised, the adopted LDP), which do not relate to soundness; and
    
8. A Consultation Report including:

• A summary of how the LPA has involved the community and stakeholders in the preparation of the plan and sustainability appraisal (including the SEA).
• Any deviation from the CIS with explanation [Regulation 9(6)].
• The total number of representations received.
• A summary of main issues arising from the deposit consultation and the LPA’s recommendations / actions. For each main issue, a summary should be provided of the matters raised in relevant deposit representations and the LPA’s recommendations for how those matters should be addressed in the LDP. Representors who wish to be heard should also be identified.
• A list of representations which, in the opinion of the LPA, were not duly made. 

Stage 1: preliminaries

1. Is an agreed, up-to-date DA (or revision) in place, which corresponds to all stages of the plan-making process?
    
2. Has a CIS been approved, which then forms the basis for all community engagement? 
    
3. Has the LPA consulted the appropriate bodies? 
    
4. Have issues of a strategic nature (which affect more than one local planning authority) been identified, and appropriate collaboration taken place? 
    
5. Has baseline information been collected and evidence gathered to keep the matters which affect the development of the area under review? 
    
6. Has baseline information been collected and evidence gathered to set the framework for the sustainability appraisal? 
    
7. Have the statutory environmental bodies been consulted for five weeks on the scope and level of detail of the environmental information to be included in the SA Report (and Habitats Regulation Appraisal, if required)? 
    
8. Has a Review Report been prepared which identifies/justifies which parts of the adopted plan require revision and which do not, and the appropriate revision procedure? 
    
9. Has a pre-deposit call for candidate sites to landowners/developers/site promoters been undertaken as required under Regulations 14 and 26A? 

Stage 2: consultation on preferred strategy (or engagement on scope of plan revision for the short form process)

1. Have the following been notified (as appropriate):

• the specific consultation bodies
• the general consultation bodies that have an interest in the subject of the LDP and have been invited to make representations about its contents

2. Have all parties been told that this is the main participation opportunity on the emerging plan? 
    
3. Have representations been invited from people resident or carrying out business in the area about the content of the LDP? (Not required for short form revision) 
    
4. Have representations been invited on issues that would have significant impacts on both areas from another local planning authority? 
    
5. Has the LPA engaged with stakeholders responsible for delivery of the strategy? 
    
6. Has the LPA taken into account representations made? 
    
7. Has the consultation / engagement contributed to the development and SA of alternatives?
8. Has participation:

• followed the principles set out in the CIS
• integrated involvement with the Single Integrated Plan/Local Well-being Plan or National Park Management Plan
• been proportionate to the scale of issues

9. Has the LPA kept a record of:

• those invited to make representations
• how this was done
• the main issues raised

Stage 3: preparing the Deposit LDP or plan revisions

1. Has the LPA prepared reasonable alternatives for evaluation during the preparation of the LDP? 
    
2. Has the LPA had regard to, and assessed alternatives against, (as relevant):

• The Wales Spatial Plan and national policy
• The Welsh National Marine Plan
• National well-being goals
• Adjoining LDPs (including Local Plans in England)
• The Single Integrated Plan / Local Well-being Plan or National Park Management Plan
• Other local adopted strategies

3. Has the LPA had regard to other matters, for example:

• The local transport plan
• The local housing strategy
• Resources, waste, minerals and hazardous substances strategies

4. Has the LPA had regard to the need to include policies on mitigating and adapting to climate change? 
    
5. Has sustainability appraisal been undertaken on alternatives, including consultation on the SA report? 
    
6. Have reasons been set out for any preferences between alternatives? 
    
7. Has the LPA taken into account – and kept a record of – any representations made on the content of the LDP, the SA and Habitats Regulation Appraisal? 
    
8. Has the LPA fully assessed and justified why specific sites have been allocated or not allocated? 
    
9. Has the LPA provided local justification for any policies which repeat or largely repeat national policy? 
    
10. Has an accurate proposals map been prepared? 
     
11. Has the LPA developed a framework for monitoring the effects of the LDP? 
     
12. If the plan is to be revised under the ‘short form’ procedure (Regulation 13A and Part 4A), do the Review Report, evidence and consultation responses justify this? Is it clear that the plan strategy remains sound and would not be modified by the proposed revisions? 

Stage 4: consultation on Deposit LDP or plan revisions

1. Has the (final) SA report been prepared? 
    
2. Has it been made clear where and within what period representations must be made? 
    
3. Have copies of the following been made available for inspection:

• the LDP documents
• a statement of the LDP matters

4. Has the LPA published on its website:

• the LDP documents
• the deposit matters
• statement/details of where/when documents can be viewed

5. Has the LPA sent to each consultation body invited to make representations under Regulation 17(c) or 26B(c): the Deposit LDP or plan revisions, the SA Report, initial consultation report, supporting documents list, relevant notices and statements? 
    
6. Has notice been given of the deposit matters and details of where and when documents can be inspected, consistent with the CIS? 
    
7. Has appropriate consultation / engagement been undertaken with the community and landowners about the location of proposals on the proposals map, in a manner compliant with the CIS? 

Stage 5: submission

1. Has the LDP been prepared in accordance with the DA? Has the LPA carried out consultation as described in CIS? Does the LDP’s listing and description in the DA match the submitted document? Have identified timescales been met? 
    
2. Has regard been had to the Single Integrated Plan / Local Well-being Plan or National Park Management Plan? 
    
3. Have the strategic issues been identified and appropriate engagement and consultation been undertaken? 
    
4. Have the deposit LDP and any Focussed Changes (including any new sites proposed in the FCs) been subject to SA and is a final report available? 
    
5. Does the LDP have regard to Future Wales, national policy, the Welsh National Marine Plan and the well-being goals? 
    
6. Has the LPA:

• published the prescribed documents, and made them available at offices and on the web
• notified the relevant statutory and non-statutory bodies, plus those invited to make representations on the plan

7. Is an accurate and clear proposals map provided in the LDP? 
    
8. Has a statement been prepared setting out:

• Which bodies / persons were invited to make representations under Regulations 17 and 26B
• How were they invited
• The number of representations made at each stage (Regs 16 / 26A and 18 / 26C)
• A summary of the main issues raised following the deposit consultation
• How deposit representations should be addressed

9. Has the LPA collected together all the representations made under Regulation 18? 
    
10. Has the LPA assembled an evidence base which is necessary to justify LDP the policies? 
     
11. Has the LPA approved its LDP for submission? 
     
12. Has the Planning Inspectorate been sent both a paper copy and an email of:

• a copy of the LDP including proposals map
• documents prescribed in Regulation 22(2)

13. Have the following been made available at the same place as the Deposit LDP:

• A copy of the LDP
• The documents prescribed in Regulation 22(2)

14. Have the following been published on the LPA’s website:

• LDP including proposals map
• SA Report
• Regulation 22(2)(c) statement
• supporting documents
• representations made under Regulation 18
• statement as to where and when the LDP and the documents are available

15. Has the LPA given notice to persons who have requested to be notified that the submission has taken place?

This section provides guidance on summarising and grouping ‘main issues’ arising from the deposit consultation in Consultation Reports. 

Where an individual policy or site allocation is subject to a deposit representation, then this should generally be dealt with as a distinct main issue. However, if multiple deposit representations are made on one policy or site allocation, these should be grouped under one main issue. 

Deposit representations which relate to closely linked policies, or to a number of closely related site allocations (for instance around a particular settlement) may also be grouped into a single main issue, particularly where infrastructure and other matters would clearly benefit from being considered in the round. 

Where possible, the schedules should appear in the Consultation Report in the same order that the main issues appear in the plan. 

Where deposit representations have been made which do not fall within a ‘main issue’ as identified by the LPA, these should be listed in a ‘miscellaneous issues’ schedule. 

Main Issues Schedules should be structured as follows:

Main issue 

Provide a short title which encapsulates the key matters raised in the deposit representations (e.g. “Housing target/requirement” or “Green wedges”).

LDP section references

List the pages, policies, paragraphs, allocations or map numbers to which this main issue relates.

Representors

List the unique reference number for each representation. Identify in bold type which representors have requested to be heard. 

Relevant content of the LDP to which the main issue relates

Provide a short description of the content of the plan being objected to (e.g. “The methodology for determining the housing target” or “The extent of and justification for the green wedge around the town of [X]”).

LPA’s summary of the deposit representation(s) 

Summarise the deposit representations received on this main issue by the representor(s). Where possible, group representations to avoid repetition. Identify in bold type specific matters for which some or all representors have requested to be heard.

Changes sought by those submitting representations 

Set out any specific changes sought by representors in response to the issues raised in the deposit representations. Again, group to avoid repetition and identify in bold type specific matters for which some or all representors have requested to be heard.

LPA’s recommendations, including reasons 

Set out the LPA’s reasoned response to the matters raised (generally expressed in less than 800 words per main issue). Explain why the LPA considers the plan to be sound. Or, where the LPA considers that a ‘Focussed Change’ is required, identify the nature of recommended changes, providing reasons.