|
|
Civic Society Comments |
BCS Comments on the BCC Draft Statement of Community Involvement Part 2. 21st February 2006
BRISTOL CIVIC SOCIETY
REPRESENTATIONS TO THE INSPECTOR ON THE DRAFT SCI
[Background note: There are 9 tests of "soundness" that the Examination will
address. The Society is saying that 5 of those fail the tests. The other 4
we are making no comment. The Government gives the following note on what
"soundness" means: "1 Sound may be considered in this context within its
ordinary meaning of "showing good judgement" and "able to be trusted", and
within the context of fulfilling the expectations of legislation. ]
TEST 4: Does the Statement identify how the community and other bodies can
be involved in a timely and accessible manner?
We take this to mean, in other words, does the Draft SCI offer involvement
that is easily accessed, approachable and at the right times in the decision
making process?
The basis for our expectations for soundness under this test
The documents "Community Involvement in Planning: the Government's
Objectives"; "PPS 1"; "PPS 12"; "A Companion Guide to PPS 12"; "LDF: A Guide
to Procedures and Codes of Practice"; "Sustainability Appraisal of Local
Development Frameworks"; all in different ways make clear that there are
four key ingredients to an effective involvement process. All four
ingredients need to be present for involvement to be effective:
1. Community involvement should be more than consultation. It should be
proactively managed towards outcomes in terms of more effectiveness.
Government guidance spells out the objective of this management: the SCI
must "ensure the active, meaningful and continued involvement of
communities" (PPS12 Guide); and highlights the need to deliberately plan
community involvement into the plan preparation process (PPS12 3.4).
2. There should be front-loading of involvement that "provides opportunities
for participation in identifying issues and debating options from the
earliest stages". Community involvement "should happen at a point at which
people recognise that they have the potential to make a difference and,
crucially, to experience a sense of ownership of local policy decisions"
(Community Involvement in Planning: The Principles, Paragraph 2.11 et al)
3. It should be a continuous process and not disjointed; there should be
direct involvement of the community in choosing the scope for and methods of
the appraisal of options and alternatives, using sustainability criteria, to
go forward into the plan (Sustainability Appraisal of LDF's).
4. The community should have confidence that, in the end, its views will
have an effect on the content of a plan or the determination of a planning
application. This effect should be made clear. The lead time between initial
ideas and implementation should not be not long drawn out. There should be
reasoned justification for plans and policies (PPS12 2.31). The process
"should allow local communities to see how ideas have developed at the
various stages, with effective feedback" (Operational Principles and PPS12).
Why we consider that the Draft SCI fails this test
1. Style: The Draft SCI is full of repetitive jargon and extremely difficult
to navigate. The logic and language is not accessible to a wide section of
the public. The difference between the key Tables A and B is particularly
confusing.
2. Proactive management: The SCI does not seem to be driven by the need for
more effective involvement, but merely proposes greater quantity of
involvement. It is not clear that there is any intention to proactively
manage the process so as to achieve effectiveness. There is only the promise
that more involvement will take place. It is as though someone is saying "we
will give you mountains of information and dozens of meetings, what more do
you want?" The Council itself has told us that it regards the Draft SCI as
little more than a compilation of existing consultation methods to be
revised over time by "custom and practice". The Draft SCI says that resource
requirements will influence where consultation methods are used and
involvement activities will be combined to optimise their value so as "not
to over consult" (1.14). The community is not tired of consultation; it is
tired of ineffective consultation. There is also need to ensure that
documents are produced at a rate that does not overburden the involvement
process (PPS 3.23). This is not addressed in the Draft SCI.
3. Prescription of methods: The SCI "should be a clear public statement
enabling the community to know how and when they will be involved" (PPS12,
3.5). Arrangements should be built on a clear understanding of the needs of
the community (Government Operational Principles). The Draft SCI promises
involvement at this stage or that stage, but what kind of involvement? There
seems to be preoccupation with ticking off steps in a process. While some of
the barriers to public access to the planning system are to do with process,
most of the barriers are to do with the detail of how involvement methods
are organised, conducted and recorded. From the community point of view it
is the detail of how meetings are managed, options set out and feedback is
given, that makes the difference between effective involvement and just more
community cynicism and disillusion. The Draft SCI does not deal with how
involvement is to be organised on that administrative level. On the
contrary, the Draft SCI says that "overly prescriptive detail" of how
involvement should take place is deliberately avoided (Appendix E).
Separately the Council tells us that this is because there is no political
agreement on the degree of prescription that should be built into the SCI.
While the Draft SCI is not overly prescriptive, it is hardly prescriptive at
all. Meanwhile the methods in the Draft SCI remain vague and open ended. The
core purpose of the SCI - when and by what method involvement will take
place (Tables A and B) - is not transparent. Methods are only given as
"examples". The "most appropriate" method will be chosen by the Council
alone, the choice will depend upon "resources and time" and the community
will not be involved in that choice. (Paragraphs 2.10 and 2.11). This
refusal to prescribe methods of involvement that are effective is not what
legislation leads the community to expect.
4. Timescale: For the community the ultimate test of effectiveness does not
occur until the plan is adopted. Effectiveness in this sense is dependent
upon the time scale between agreement on the need for a plan to the plan
being adopted, being short enough to maintain voluntary commitment to
unpaid, spare time. In some cases this can stretch into years. There is no
thought for or reference in the Draft to this critical time factor and its
effect upon involvement success.
5. The LDF: Although PPS12 does not require the Local Development Scheme to
be published for public comment (PPS12 3.24), the community has a very
direct interest in where, when and why plan documents will be produced. This
interest is especially acute in Bristol since 60% of the documents within
the LDS are SPD's that do not provide an opportunity for independent public
examination.
How we think that the SCI should be changed to make it sound.
1. The Draft SCI needs to be re-written in plain English, avoiding esoteric
"tests of soundness" and simply setting out by what specific method, where,
when and over what time period the community can expect to be involved.
2. The Draft SCI declares the Council's vision for involvement (paragraph
1.5) but in different terms to those used in Government guidelines. For
clarity and public confidence, the SCI should contain an unambiguous
statement that the Council will implement PPS1, PPS12 and implement the
operational principles set out in Community Involvement: The Government's
Objectives (paragraph 2.11).
3. Instead of being a compilation of possible involvement methods in the
Draft SCI, the SCI should be a clear programme of specific methods and when
and where they will be applied, chosen on the basis that they will promote
and achieve effective involvement. There should be an unambiguous commitment
to supply and proactively manage available resources to match, if necessary
limiting the plan production programme at any one time. (See also Test 6
below).
4. The Draft SCI should propose a method through which the community can
give feedback on the choice of types, subjects, areas and scope of DPD's and
SPD's as part of the LDF, once it is published. This method should be
proposed and monitored by GOSW as part of its duty under PPS12 to assess the
LDS.
TEST 5: Are the methods of involvement on offer suitable for the intended
audience and for the different stages in the preparation of Local
Development Documents?
The basis for our expectations of soundness under this test
We take this to mean, in other words, can we trust the methods proposed to
produce a joined-up process, front loading involvement, involvement in the
appraisal of options and alternatives, and transparent feedback on the
effect of involvement on the content of the plan?
In our experience of current practice, the community may never have the
opportunity to discuss options. For example, in the "consultation" process
dealing with proposals to expand Broadmead, information was given out on the
design of the anchor store. The community and stakeholders disapproved. At
the next involvement meeting the same design was retained. Further demands
for change resulted in another meeting where the same designs were
presented. Time and patience ran out. In contrast, community involvement in
the Nelson Street SPD allowed for effective, informed debate around three
carefully presented options. The SCI must bring clarity and consistency to a
confused situation.
Why the Draft SCI does not pass this test
1. On the method for involvement in pre production scoping or front loading
for DPD's and SPD's (Table B page 14): it is not clear how:
(a) "Internal corporate discussions" or discussions with the "Community
Development Unit" will ensure effective community involvement?
(b) "Groups not involved with existing initiatives" will be identified?
(c) The agenda for and results of "discussions" with one group are known to
other groups and the wider community?
(d) The assumptions being made about community views will be known to the
community?
These methods need to be transparent if we are to be confident that they are
sound. Especially since, to our knowledge, there has been no community
involvement in the pre production scoping of some of the SPD's, or the City
Centre Strategy DPD, that are already adopted or underway. Neither has there
been pre production scoping in the production of the Draft SCI itself.
2. On the method for involvement in exploring issues and alternatives for
DPD's: with the potential exception of "workshops" and "linking" with
existing community initiatives (See paragraph 4 below), the proposed methods
would not enable the two-way dialogue and discussion essential if the
community is to influence the choice of options. They are simply methods for
disseminating information. This need for two-way dialogue is even more
essential when dealing with the complex appraisal of sustainability. Neither
is there opportunity for dialogue when the Preferred Options document is
approved. When the report is presented to Executive Members, the community
has no access. When it is presented to Cabinet the Public Forum system does
not allow dialogue. Other than for land allocations, it is not clear how the
methods of involvement proposed in the Draft SCI (Table B, page 14, column
4) will "establish a broad consensus on the preferred policy direction"
(Table B page 14, column 5).
3. The SCI Draft does not appear to provide for any community involvement in
the generation of development options or alternatives in SPD's that at
present form some 60% of the Bristol Local Development Framework (Table B
page 16).
5. The Draft SCI proposes the use of consultation managers or facilitators
in "workshops", "events", "forums" and "planning for real" for involvement
in DPD's (Table A various) and in pre-application discussions (paragraph 3.0
and Table D). Promoting "workshops" will not of itself deliver effective
involvement. In our experience, it is the way in which this method is
administered at present that, far from making involvement effective, does
the opposite and creates a barrier to involvement. The reasons include:
" "Workshops" are usually held either as one-off single-day events or even
week-long events with no front loading or follow-up, or they are held as a
series of events at infrequent intervals with a changing list of invitees.
This is not continuous involvement.
" Involvement tends to begin when options have been already ruled out,
definitive plans made or a developer has a fixed proposal. This is not
"front loading".
" "Involvement" often amounts simply to a presentation of information on
progress by the developer and the community then hears no more about it.
" The professional "facilitators" employed by the Council or developer often
arrive with their client's agenda and have on occasion refused to alter the
agenda to include community items.
" The involvement of the community is often kept at an abstract level by:
(a) Being asked for a shopping list of "aspirations" without prospect of
implementation. Such as "more open space please".
(b) Being asked to approve general concepts of "motherhood and apple pie"
such as "sustainability is good".
(c) Filling in post-it slips with random thoughts such as "I don't like it"
only to be faced with a reply from the developer saying "But I do".
" Professional officers or consultants employed by the Council or by the
developer usually retain control of which community aspiration, concept or
thought is "feasible" or will be implemented, because "they know best". This
approach may be justified on questions of complex technical feasibility but
is often applied to questions of pure value judgement. Planning officers and
the expert consultants they employ all too often write in their own value
judgements, even on matters of pure opinion.
" Community views can be accepted or ignored in an arbitrary way.
" The record of community views is open to manipulation.
" Consultation may be repeated with long ad hoc time intervals until fatigue
among the community "secures" the "right" pre-determined view.
" Often, little change is made to original plans as a direct result of
consultees' views.
6. The support and encouragement offered to planning applicants (paragraph
3.3 through 3.8 and table D) is progressive, but does not provide guidance
to applicants on how involvement methods can and should avoid the real
problems listed in 4 above. Appendix E says that the Draft SCI "expects
consistent standards" of involvement method and expects applicants to
"reflect" good practice by themselves researching various information
sources. This will not produce a single set of ground rules, leaves the
system open to even more confusion and leaves the community even less
unclear as to what to expect. The "Bristol Compact" recommended by Appendix
E as good practice that those undertaking community involvement should
follow, does not deal with involvement on the detailed administrative level
necessary to secure effectiveness. Unless consistent ground rules are set
involvement is not only ineffective but is regressive. It is unrealistic and
unreasonable to expect the promoters of private schemes to ensure effective
front loading of involvement, an unbiased discussion of options and an
unbiased revision of the scheme to reflect community views. In effect, the
Draft SCI is expecting applicants and developers to act as an unpaid
planning authority.
How we think that the SCI should be changed to make it sound.
1. Make a clear commitment within the SCI to implement front-loading
involvement in scoping DPD's and SPD's using the definition given in
Community Involvement in Planning: the Government's Objectives (2.11). This
is the definition recommended to us by GOSW.
2. The SCI should spell out a standard method for community involvement in
the exploration of options and alternatives in both DPD's and SPD's. There
are well established processes outside the planning system: in the health
system and in the criminal legal system, that demonstrate very clearly that
the public can make informed choices between options even where the factors
involved are complex and require "expertise". A similar approach should and
can be taken in the local planning system. Professional officers and expert
officers should explain the constraints created by the law or by other
established policies, local and regional; report relevant good practice
elsewhere; explain sustainability impacts, explain cost implications and set
out options. The community should then be given a clear choice between
options, within those constraints and with given implications on resources.
3. The SCI should give a clear commitment from the Council to proactively
assist the formation and operation of neighbourhood planning groups or
forums based on the model already established and promoted by the Council in
Redcliffe. Such permanent, open, representative groups are an absolutely
essential method of involvement if the SCI is to be effective in front
loading involvement and involvement in exploring options and alternatives.
Similar plan-making forums are being assisted by the Council in Manor Farm
and Bedminster (Draft SCI paragraph 8). Only such an arrangement can enable
the community to:
" Input community expertise, insight and special knowledge (PPS12 3.7 and
PPS12 Guide 7.1). Local communities can specify a wealth of essential detail
for a plan, for example, the safety of public spaces, travel patterns,
accommodation mix, community facilities, etc.
" Gain over time sufficient knowledge of the system to enable effective
involvement.
" Be fully involved in front loading of DPD's and SPD's.
" Make an informed choice between options and alternatives in DPD's and
SPD's.
" Begin to understand and be involved in decisions on the practical
implementation of the crucial concept of sustainability, in part by visiting
and experiencing other real examples of good practice in sustainable
development.
" Develop front loading views on area-wide policies and plans to give the
context for community comments on pre planning application and post planning
application involvement.
" Maintain involvement over long time periods.
4. The SCI should contain a single set of administrative ground rules of
good practice, issued by the Local Authority, for use by developers who
choose to carry out pre application community involvement. Developers should
not be left to their own devises. The ground rules should form a compact
between the community and the Council, promoted by the Government Office
South West, and as encouraged by PPS12 (paragraph 3.7). The community should
be involved in drawing up the ground rules.
5. The SCI should give a clear commitment from the Council to set an example
to developers and planning applicants by itself implementing the ground
rules in 3 above for pre planning application community involvement, for all
development on land owned by the Council or transferred from the ownership
of the Council to enable development.
TEST 6: Are resources available to manage the involvement process
effectively?
The basis for our expectations of soundness under this test
The SCI must show that involvement can be resourced and managed effectively
(Community Involvement in Planning: The Government's Objectives paragraph
1.8; PPS12 3.6 et al).
Everyone recognises the limits on public resources. We believe that at
present the Council perceives the cost of effective community involvement to
be high and is proposing to put a limit on involvement. Our experience is
that the cost appears high to the Council simply because of the enormous
amounts of time required, both by the community and by the Council itself,
to navigate the Council's own labyrinthine bureaucracy and deal with its own
inter-departmental professional rivalry. It is not because effective
involvement of itself requires high staff or monetary resources.
Whatever the level of resources available and far from requiring more
resources from the Council, effective community involvement can be the means
to manage the planning process more cost-effectively. The Government takes
the view that the more the resources effectively spent in plan making
involvement the less the costs of disputes at the Examination or Appeal
stages of involvement. In our own experience, much of the extra resource
required can come from the community itself. (Oral evidence from the
Redcliffe Neighbourhood Partnership given to the BCC Select Committee Nov
2004 et al).
Why the Draft SCI does not pass this test 1.14
1. The Draft SCI proposes to deal with what we see as the Council's fears
over lack of resources, not by proactive management and the effective use of
limited resources but by limiting involvement. Paragraphs 1.14, 1.15, 2.9iii
8, 2.10 and 2.11 for plan preparation and paragraph 3.3 for planning
applications, all limit involvement to the Council's (unknown) willingness
to resource it, rather than plan for the Council's resources will be
carefully managed to achieve the aim of effective involvement. The Draft SCI
makes clear that it is resource-led and not effectiveness-led. This is not
what the legislation leads the community to expect.
2. The Draft SCI proposes to spend resources on methods of involvement that,
in our experience, are not effective rather than choosing to transfer the
same resources to methods that, in our experience, are effective.
3. There would seem to us to be no reason why the Council cannot calculate
in advance to match resources available to the delivery of effective
involvement. Failure to do that is likely to lead to failure to enable
effective involvement, thus producing a new cycle of public disillusion with
the planning system and a decline in involvement.
4. Part of the difficulty in the Council being able to plan ahead and
proactively manage resources in this way is that there has been no adequate
monitoring of the effectiveness of past consultation methods to use as a
guide to management. It is essential that there is adequate monitoring and
review in the future. This is dealt with under Test 8 below.
How we think that the SCI should be changed to make it sound.
1. The SCI should set out a programme for community involvement that the
Council has calculated can be properly resourced to make it effective.
Effectiveness should lead resources, not resources limit effectiveness. This
would be subject to review at the natural end of the involvement processes
in question. If necessary, depending on resources available, the volume of
plan making and the number of planning applications subject to this
programme, in any one year, may need to be limited. As we see it, this is
exactly the purpose of managing the Local Development Scheme called for in
PPS12 3.23.
2. The SCI should transfer resources away from past and present ineffective
involvement methods and direct them to more effective methods. Promoting the
creation of local forums and setting effective ground rules for workshops
and pre-application involvement would be major examples (See Test 5 above).
3. The programme under 1 above should be combined with a programme for
monitoring and review under Test 8 below.
TEST 7: Does the SCI show how results of community involvement will be fed
into the preparation of DPD's and SPD's?
The basis for our expectations of soundness under this test
Our understanding is that one of the key requirements of the Government
reforms of the planning process is that the community should be able to see
and understand, from feedback, how far the visions, views, ideas and choices
put forward during the community involvement process have resulted in change
to and become a part of a development plan document. This is part of
building community confidence in the document process (PPS12 a Guide, Step 6
et al). Such feedback has already been recommended by the Council's own
Select Committee on the Reform of the Planning System.
Why the Draft SCI does not pass this test
1. In SPD's the opportunity to question the officer interpretation of
community comments, collected from the involvement process and before
Adoption takes place, is severely limited. Little or no dialogue is allowed
with the Executive Member and the system of petitions to Cabinet through the
Public Forum does not allow dialogue. There is no "safety valve" of an
Independent Public Examination for SPD's as there is for DPD's, even though,
in Bristol, SPD's form 60% of the Local Development Framework.
2. The SCI Draft gives no confidence to the public that officer analysis of
public comments in DPD's or SPD's will result in a reasonable level of
amendment to the plan. For example, our experience is that, of all the
substantial comments made on the Draft SCI by several community groups, only
16% resulted in any amendment to the document, despite over 60% of those
comments being "welcomed" by officers. The reasons for rejecting 84% of
community comments are not transparent. There was almost no front loading of
involvement in the Draft SCI.
How we think that the SCI should be changed to make it sound.
1. The SCI should commit to a method that will give opportunity for public
debate and open dialogue with the Council on the report to go to both the
Executive and the Cabinet prior to the formal adoption of an SPD. The public
can thereby verify as to how far the plan being put for Adoption accurately
reflects its views.
TEST 8: Does the Council have sufficient mechanisms for reviewing the SCI?
The basis for our expectations of soundness under this test
We understand that the Government's intention is that the SCI should be
revised where significant changes have occurred.
It is also clear from all the guidelines that the overall test of whether
the methods employed are adequate is whether there is an increase in the
"confidence of the community that it can make a difference and gain a sense
of ownership of the planning process".
Monitoring and review of effectiveness should go hand in hand with the
management of resources under Test 6 above.
Why the Draft SCI does not pass this test
1. The Draft SCI provides two points in time when the SCI will be reviewed:
when a DPD is submitted to the Secretary of State and when a draft SPD is
published for consultation (paragraphs 1.17 and 1.18). In both cases the
Draft SCI promises a review of the effectiveness of involvement methods
(paragraph 1.19). Community comments on "appropriateness" will be "taken
into account" and the "Local Development Framework Board" will judge whether
involvement methods have been "successful". Where techniques have "proved to
be unsuccessful" a formal review of the SCI will take place. However, the
community has no direct access to the Board. The community's views on
effectiveness will be interpreted by officers and the community will have no
opportunity to explain its case. Public confidence in this process cannot be
achieved unless:
(a) What is "appropriate" and what is "successful" are clearly defined,
understood and accepted by all parties.
(b) The community is able to make comment in open dialogue with the Council
on the same basis that the Board will advise the Council.
2. Paragraph 1.6(c), of the Draft SCI says that the SCI has thus far been
informed by the City Council's Consultation Strategy 2001, updated 2004,
that provides an analysis of the strengths and weaknesses of the wide range
of involvement methods the Council has employed. The analysis does indeed
analyse the efficacy and cost-effectiveness of different consultation
methods, including how "representative" the results might be. However the
"strengths" and "weaknesses" of involvement are measured mainly as the
amount of involvement produced, its cost to the Council and its usefulness
to Council decision taking, rather than its effectiveness to the community.
Where a community view of the effectiveness of involvement is monitored at
all, it is reported as low. We are not aware of any other serious attempts
to monitor the effectiveness of past consultation procedures in terms of
effect upon the community's confidence in the system.
3. The Draft SCI appears to make no provision for testing or reviewing the
SCI in respect of the effectiveness or otherwise of community involvement in
planning applications.
How we think that the SCI should be changed to make it sound.
1. The SCI should make the tests of "appropriateness" and "success" of
involvement explicit. Measurement should be in terms of the how it affects
the community's sense of ownership of and confidence in the system, as well
as the implications for the organisation and management of the Council.
2. The community should have the opportunity to have an open dialogue with
the Council on its view of the effectiveness of any method of involvement
rather than the question being reserved to some internal body.
3. The SCI should provide for a review of the effectiveness of community
involvement in the planning control process, again with clear definitions of
effectiveness, at the point when an application of types 1 or 2 (Table D)
has been determined. The review should be open to public comment.
End.
ATTACHMENTS
1. Evidence to the BCC Select Committee on the Reform of the Planning
System, 29 November 2004.
2. Comments on the Consultation Draft SCI, 19 October 2005.
3. Representations to the Physical Environment Scrutiny Commission, 29
November 2005
4. Representations to the Cabinet, 8 December 2005.
4. Representations to the Council, 10th January 2006.
DF/21 Feb 06