§ The Minister for Housing and Planning (Keith Hill)The test is of "general conformity" and not conformity. This means that it is only where an inconsistency or omission in a UDP would cause significant harm to the implementation of the spatial development strategy (SDS) that the UDP should be considered not to be in general conformity.
The fact that a UDP is inconsistent with one or more policies in the SDS either directly or through the omission of a policy or proposal, does not, by itself, mean that the UDP is not in general conformity. Rather the test is how significant the inconsistency is from the point of view of delivery of the SDS.
Where a borough considers that one or more of the UDP policies and proposals are not consistent with the SDS, it must give robust reasons for this.
An opinion by the mayor that a UDP is not in general conformity does not mean the document automatically falls. Rather, the mayor's opinion on the matter would go forward as a duly made objection to be considered by the Inspector at the inquiry. The inspector will determine whether he or she supports the opinion and recommend accordingly.
In addition to any concerns about a lack of general conformity, the mayor may wish to make other representations concerning changes to specific policies and proposals which he would wish to see.
Where a UDP review has passed the formal deposit stage there is no specific provision for the mayor to make formal objections on the grounds of general conformity, although the mayor, like any other party, may make representations to a borough any time before the adoption of the plan. However, the Secretary of State would wish the mayor and the boroughs to resolve issues of general conformity through discussion, having regard to the Secretary of State's policy. It will be for boroughs to satisfy themselves that a UDP is in general conformity with the SDS before proceeding to adoption.