Responses of Bristol Civic Society 19 February 2008

Chairman: John Payne

1.     This representation is in two parts:

A: A statement in support of the Submission Draft SCI as being sound under tests 1, 2, 3, 7 and 9.

B: A statement of how we consider that the Draft SCI is still unsound under tests 4&5 combined, 6 and 8.

Representation forms are attached.

2.     PART A: IN SUPPORT OF THE DRAFT SCI.

2.1.     As a result of this frontloaded involvement and the Council’s positive response to it, we see many positives in the Submission Draft of January 2008, including:

(a) There now appears to be a big shift in intent on the part of the Council in favour of community involvement that is more than information giving or “consultation” and in favour of the Council taking a proactive role to enable effective involvement.

(b) The SCI now commits to the use of specific Ground Rules for the conduct of the involvement process that apply to all the Departments of the Council and the community equally and are expected of developers and planning applicants. When these are properly applied we consider that they will create the conditions for a true partnership between the key players in the planning process.

(c) The role of local neighbourhood planning groups is embedded into the community involvement process as a prime means to making involvement effective by providing local expertise, enabling informed choice, linking development control with plan making and opening the opportunity for involvement to a wider section of the population, including the “hard to reach” groups.

(d) The section on Planning Applications is far clearer and involvement friendly than the 2006 SCI and in our view provides the platform for a “UK Beacon” level of best practice procedures in community involvement in the planning application process.

2.2.           We still see some weakness in the Submission Draft of January 2008, but we consider that these do not amount to unsoundness, rather that they should be addressed as part of the Annual Monitoring Report and the process of improving practice. In particular there is still a need for plainer English if the SCI is to work in promoting both effective involvement and involvement of people who see planning as a foreign land. We regret that the Council has not taken up the Planning Inspector’s recommendation that there is an independent assessment of clarity such as that provided by the Plain English Campaign or the system of Crystal Marks.

2.3     There is much to applaud in the new Draft SCI 2008. In contrast to the Draft SCI 2006, the creation of this Draft did involve the community from its inception through a series of productive meetings, including three open workshop type sessions. The Council demonstrated that the Draft SCI responded to many of the views put forward by the community in those meetings. We give special thanks and credit to the City Council Corporate Communications Manager, the Citywide Planning Policy Project Manager (as was) and the Head of Planning Services for their concern for, attention to, and positive response to the community view. We congratulate the Council and look forward to resolving the remaining aspects of unsoundness detailed below.

PART B: HOW THE DRAFT SCI IS CONSIDERED TO BE UNSOUND.

Soundness Test

Fulfilling the expectations of legislation, good practice guidance and front loaded involvement

How the Draft SCI fails the soundness test and reasonable expectations

Changes required to make SCI sound

Test 4: Show involvement timeliness and accessibility, and

Test 5:

Show that methods are suitable and appropriate for the intended audience

1.     Identifying and understanding the needs of groups who find it difficult to engage with the planning system is essential (The Government’s Objectives 2.10)

2.     LPA’s should build a clear understanding of the make-up, interests and needs of the communities in their area” and “Identifying and understanding the needs of groups who find it difficult to engage with the planning system is critical to achieving sustainable development objectives” (PPS1 42)

3. Involvement workshop 8^th      March 2007, Council officers responded to community views by agreeing to include in the Annual Monitoring Report an assessment of the quality and quantity of involvement and how far it had influenced Council reports.

1.     Paragraph 4.27 of the Consultation Draft SCI July 2007 committed to additional work to increase involvement from uninvolved groups. This was omitted from the Submission Draft.

2.     In addition to a reinstated paragraph 4.27, the Draft SCI is required by Government guidance to be more proactive in increasing involvement especially of the “hard to reach” groups. Additional actions need to include research to identify reasons for non-involvement and reasonable annual targets for increasing involvement.

1.     Reinstate Consultation Draft paragraph 4.27

2.     Additional paragraph to follow 4.29 to read:

“ As part of the Annual Monitoring Report the Council will carry out research to identify the categories, numbers and reasons for non-involvement beyond the receiving of information. As a result targets will be set for increased involvement. Paragraphs 5.7 to 5.12 set out how the SCI will be reviewed.

Test 6:

Show that the resources necessary to manage involvement effectively are available

1.     LPA’s should project manage the (LDS) process to reflect (among other things) the need to involve other local partners/stakeholders in the preparation of local development documents” PPS12 3.23.

2.     Demonstrate reasonable consideration to the link between resources and type and scale of involvement (Planning Inspectorate Guide to Soundness Assessment)

1.     Although paragraph 5.1 shows that budgets are in place to fund the scale and type of involvement set out in the SCI, paragraph 5.2 does not show the same for staff resources.

2. Appendix D is misleading.

(a) It confuses communication with effective involvement

(b) It describes a general link between types of communication and the impact on Council resources, but without a measure of effectiveness in involvement. While publishing reports or emails for example are relatively inexpensive, they are relatively ineffective in involving people in decision taking.

3. The link between resources and the types and scale of involvement is not shown. It is necessary to link available resources; the anticipated amounts of plan making and the desired level of involvement, in a programme management plan.

1.     Insert at 5.2 first sentence: “ The scale and type of resources necessary to effectively staff the activities outlined in this document are (in the alternative “will be made”) available”.

2. Omit Appendix D and delete paragraph 5.6

3. Substitute for paragraph 5.6: “In the Annual Monitoring Report, the City Council will review both the effectiveness of involvement methods as triggered by feedback on community satisfaction, and the resources incurred, so as to manage resources more effectively.

Test 8 Show that there are mechanisms for reviewing the procedures in the SCI

1.     Need for clarity on what will trigger a review (Planning Inspectorate Guide to Soundness Assessment)

2.     Involvement workshop 8^th March 2007, Council officers responded to community views by agreeing to a review of the methods of involvement being deployed if triggered by the community reporting that involvement was not being effective either in creating a sense of ownership of policy decisions or in increasing the involvement of uninvolved groups.

1. The section “Reviewing the SCI” is a commitment to annual review of involvement (5.7) and to an adjustment in involvement methods (5.11) but it does not make clear what test will trigger an adjustment in the effectiveness of the ways that the community is involved.

1.     Paragraph 5.11: omit words “if experience indicates” and substitute the text: “In the interim period the Council will adjust the way it involves people if feedback from those involved indicates that involvement is not being effective either in creating a sense of ownership of policy decisions or in increasing the involvement of uninvolved groups”.

Soundness Test	Fulfilling the expectations of legislation, good practice guidance and front loaded involvement	How the Draft SCI fails the soundness test and reasonable expectations	Changes required to make SCI sound
Test 4: Show involvement timeliness and accessibility, and Test 5: Show that methods are suitable and appropriate for the intended audience	1. Identifying and understanding the needs of groups who find it difficult to engage with the planning system is essential (The Government’s Objectives 2.10) 2. LPA’s should build a clear understanding of the make-up, interests and needs of the communities in their area” and “Identifying and understanding the needs of groups who find it difficult to engage with the planning system is critical to achieving sustainable development objectives” (PPS1 42) 3. Involvement workshop 8^th March 2007, Council officers responded to community views by agreeing to include in the Annual Monitoring Report an assessment of the quality and quantity of involvement and how far it had influenced Council reports.	1. Paragraph 4.27 of the Consultation Draft SCI July 2007 committed to additional work to increase involvement from uninvolved groups. This was omitted from the Submission Draft. 2. In addition to a reinstated paragraph 4.27, the Draft SCI is required by Government guidance to be more proactive in increasing involvement especially of the “hard to reach” groups. Additional actions need to include research to identify reasons for non-involvement and reasonable annual targets for increasing involvement.	1. Reinstate Consultation Draft paragraph 4.27 2. Additional paragraph to follow 4.29 to read: “ As part of the Annual Monitoring Report the Council will carry out research to identify the categories, numbers and reasons for non-involvement beyond the receiving of information. As a result targets will be set for increased involvement. Paragraphs 5.7 to 5.12 set out how the SCI will be reviewed.
Test 6: Show that the resources necessary to manage involvement effectively are available	1. LPA’s should project manage the (LDS) process to reflect (among other things) the need to involve other local partners/stakeholders in the preparation of local development documents” PPS12 3.23. 2. Demonstrate reasonable consideration to the link between resources and type and scale of involvement (Planning Inspectorate Guide to Soundness Assessment)	1. Although paragraph 5.1 shows that budgets are in place to fund the scale and type of involvement set out in the SCI, paragraph 5.2 does not show the same for staff resources. 2. Appendix D is misleading. (a) It confuses communication with effective involvement (b) It describes a general link between types of communication and the impact on Council resources, but without a measure of effectiveness in involvement. While publishing reports or emails for example are relatively inexpensive, they are relatively ineffective in involving people in decision taking. 3. The link between resources and the types and scale of involvement is not shown. It is necessary to link available resources; the anticipated amounts of plan making and the desired level of involvement, in a programme management plan.	1. Insert at 5.2 first sentence: “ The scale and type of resources necessary to effectively staff the activities outlined in this document are (in the alternative “will be made”) available”. 2. Omit Appendix D and delete paragraph 5.6 3. Substitute for paragraph 5.6: “In the Annual Monitoring Report, the City Council will review both the effectiveness of involvement methods as triggered by feedback on community satisfaction, and the resources incurred, so as to manage resources more effectively.
Test 8 Show that there are mechanisms for reviewing the procedures in the SCI	1. Need for clarity on what will trigger a review (Planning Inspectorate Guide to Soundness Assessment) 2. Involvement workshop 8^th March 2007, Council officers responded to community views by agreeing to a review of the methods of involvement being deployed if triggered by the community reporting that involvement was not being effective either in creating a sense of ownership of policy decisions or in increasing the involvement of uninvolved groups.	1. The section “Reviewing the SCI” is a commitment to annual review of involvement (5.7) and to an adjustment in involvement methods (5.11) but it does not make clear what test will trigger an adjustment in the effectiveness of the ways that the community is involved.	1. Paragraph 5.11: omit words “if experience indicates” and substitute the text: “In the interim period the Council will adjust the way it involves people if feedback from those involved indicates that involvement is not being effective either in creating a sense of ownership of policy decisions or in increasing the involvement of uninvolved groups”.