West Leigh Residents’ Association

 

Response to the Council’s Statement of Community Involvement

 

  1. All participants should receive an acknowledgement (including a reference number) to their response irrespective of how that response was submitted (4.4). This is especially important considering the time that must be committed to the exercise.
  2. When considering feedback and providing “reasons for action”, the Council’s reasons for not adopting a proposal should also be supplied (4.5).
  3. The feedback response summary should be sent to the participants (4.5).
  4. A list of consultees should be available (5.3)
  5. Have any workshops, etc taken place on, e.g. the Core Strategy? (5.7)
  6. Public announcements should appear prominently in all local newspapers (5.11) The Council needs a regular column in each paper promoting such important matters.
  7. In view of the size of some of the LDDs  and the consequent time needed to download, serious consideration should be given to minimising their content. The Design and Townscape Guide is 5.6mb and would be very difficult to download without a broadband connection. Reduction in the number and size of images, logos, etc, splitting large documents in separate downloadable sections and reducing the verbage (see below) should be considered.
  8. Has the Council considered on-line discussion forums on the website? (5.12). Access to other participants’ thoughts and ideas can lead to improved recognition of shared concerns and innovative thinking.
  9. The Council must hold at least one public meeting and not just on DPDs; meetings on SPDs should also be held. (5.19)
  10. Employment of specialist consultants must be avoided (5.22). Consultants are expensive, have a poor track record (at SBC) and tend to supply what their paymasters want to hear.
  11. A disproportionate load is to be placed on those seeking changes (5.29). Individuals and groups may not have the resources and knowledge required to demonstrate compliance with the “tests of soundness”, to provide a “sustainability appraisal”, etc. If this is a requirement the Council should provide appropriate assistance.
  12. SPDs should be subject to the same processes as DPDs (5.31)
  13. The documents published so far are much too large, verbose, repetitive and jargon-filled. In order to ensure inclusivity and meaningful consultation, officers must produce documents that are concise, devoid of newspeak and understandable to non-bureaucrats.

 

Community Involvement on Planning Applications

 

  1. Where is the Weekly List available to the public? (7.1)
  2. What are the criteria for consulting residents groups? Does the Council do this spontaneously? (7.5)
  3. The availability of plans at LTC should be prominent on appropriate neighbour notifications (7.7).
  4. Plans should be accessible via the Council’s website. (7.7)
  5. Residents groups should be allowed to address the Committee on their members’ behalf (8.2). This is permitted in other authorities and assists people intimidated by the committee environment.
  6. The criteria for deciding which applications go to committee and which are delegated to officers need to be clearly stated. The Development Control Committee should regularly review the delegated lists. (8.2) 
  7. Planning officers must assist those objecting to an application. Applicants benefit from receiving significant officer time. Objectors should also be able to seek advice and guidance from officers  who should pro-actively assist in drawing up reasons for objection.
  8. Plans should be available for inspection at local libraries as stated in paragraph 76 of the Audit Commission’s Planning Inspection Report (June 05).