Planning Inspectorate newsletter - Issue 1
TheNew Development Plan System in England – Statements of Community Involvement
As described in Leonora Rozee’s article elsewhere in this Newsletter, the Planning Inspectorate has responsibility for determining whether Statements of Community Involvement (SCIs) are “sound”. The SCI is a local planning authority’s statement on how it is to involve its residents and all others with local interests in the planning of its area and in deciding planning applications. The tests of whether an SCI is sound are set out in paragraph 3.10 of PPS12 and cover compliance with Regulations, the LPA’s strategy, methods and effectiveness of community involvement and its coherence with similar initiatives.
By mid-December 2005, 176 SCIs had been submitted to the Planning Inspectorate for examination, and 24 binding Inspector reports issued. As is to be expected with any new system a few teething problems have been experienced with some of the early SCIs. For example, Regulation 25(1) of The Town and Country Planning (Local Development) (England) Regulations 2004 (SI 2004 No 2204) requires certain consultations to be carried out in advance of those required by Regulation 26 to maximise opportunities for engagement with the community and ensure that the LPA has been able to consider all reasonable suggestions before they publish their draft SCI. This has not occurred in some cases.
There also seems to be uncertainty over whether LPAs must send SCIs documents to all those included on the initial scoping exercise ("the DPD bodies"). LPAs tell us that the large number of bodies consulted at the scoping stage makes the later sending of SCI documents unmanageable, and it seems unnecessary to send documents to those who didn’t respond. Some LPAs are sending a letter to the DPD bodies saying where the SCI can be seen. Whilst the Planning Inspectorate is sympathetic to the resourcing issues, the Regulations do require everyone who was consulted at Regulation 25 to be consulted at subsequent stages - even if they have expressed no interest.
Other problems which our early experience has highlighted are LPAs missing out parts of the proposals matters, not placing advertisements, and failing to consult with adjacent parish councils.
It is of course a matter for the Inspector to determine whether there has been any procedural error in the preparation of the SCI. However, we are keen to avoid if possible Inspectors having to examine in detail an SCI which has a procedural error with the possible outcome being to reject the SCI as unsound. Such a finding would lead to delay and impact on the timetable set out in the local authority’s Local Development Scheme.
The philosophy behind the new Local Development Framework arrangements is to make plan preparation more inclusive, more collaborative and less adversarial than the previous development plan regime; it should also be quicker to operate and more responsive to local needs as they evolve. Consequently, it is in no-one’s interests for examinations to become bogged down with discussions about whether or not certain statutory requirements have been fulfilled, or for Inspectors to need to rectify shortcomings in their reports – or LPAs to need to take retrospective action to meet their obligations following issue of the report.
With this in mind, where there appears to be insufficient evidence to demonstrate that they have complied with the Regulations, we will seek further information from the LPA on how they have met, or intend to meet retrospectively, the statutory requirements. This may, of course, not resolve all problems but it will flag up at an early stage where we have concerns and allow LPAs to either take corrective action or seek to persuade the Inspector that the SCI is sound. In the spirit of collaboration this approach should help us all meet the challenging targets posed by the new system.
Martin Steer
Head of Local Development Frameworks
