To receive Report No.83/2020 from the Interim Strategic Director for Places.

Councillor G Brown, as the Portfolio Holder for Environment, Planning, Property, and Finance introduced the report and explained that a review of the Statement of Community Involvement (SCI) at this time would allow progress with the Local Plan consultation, and enable the Regulation 19 consultation (and subsequent stages) which had been approved by Council in February 2020, to take place.

Councillor G Brown explained that the SCI was not a development plan document and noted that there was no statutory requirement to consult on it. It was however considered good practice to undertake informal consultation on the proposed changes. Following this, Cabinet would be asked to approve the draft review for a four-week consultation; it was proposed that the consultation on the revised SCI would run from August - September 2020.  It was further noted that there were three stages of consultation that had taken place in the preparation of the Local Plan which were highlighted in the report and the recommendation would enable the statutory consultation on the Plan to progress.

Deputations from members of the public:

The Chair explained that a deputation from a member of the public had been submitted and had been published on the website and circulated to Members of the Committee. In relation to the deputation, a number of questions were asked by the Committee. In response to the questions asked, Councillor G Brown confirmed the following:

a)     In relation to those who are unable to access the internet (to respond to the consultation) this is expected to be a relatively small number of people as the list of those being shielded in the county indicates only 10% have no direct access to the internet. However, there would be substantial communications via the web, radio, press and through Parish/Town Councils to residents, and those unable to access the web would be able to access a bespoke phone service at the County Council offices.

b)     Despite the Youth Council having not met during the Covid19 pandemic, it was noted that social media would be used extensively to engage with the younger residents.

c)     Whilst it has been recognised that some campaign groups have not been able to meet during the pandemic, alternatives could have been explored, demonstrated by Parish Councils and others using Zoom/Skype and other virtual meeting platforms.

d)     Open engagement in market towns was not a viable option as there would be issues and concerns about social distancing and the sanitisation of printed documents.

e)     The Secretary of State had emphasised that there was a need to focus on web-based consultation and not paper consultation.

Councillor G Brown thanked the member of the public for their deputation noting that the questions posed had been well considered and appropriate. In accordance with the procedure rules a full response to the deputation has been appended to the minutes.

Timeline of the consultation:

The Portfolio Holder confirmed, in response to questions and comments about the proposed timetable, that although a proposal had previously been made at Council to extend the deadline for consultation because of the number of April bank holidays, there had never been a firm commitment to this. Furthermore, there should be no further extension as the documents had been available since February 2020 which was considered more than adequate time.

Statement of Community Involvement:

Responding to questions asked by the Committee, the Portfolio Holder confirmed the following:

i)          Staffing capacity had been considered in relation to the roll out of the consultation and the Communications Team would have support from external staff to deal with any potential increase in enquiries.

ii)         The Local Plan consultation process would deliver a wide range of comments which would be passed on to the Inspector Responses would need to be related to the soundness of the Local Plan. The period of time between the proposed dates indicated in the LDS would allow for responses to the consultation to be collated and ordered. Any suggested modifications from the Inspector would then have to be considered and debated by Council.

iii)       The recommendations of the Secretary of State meant residents would need to complete the specific consultation response form. If there were issues with those unable to access the internet, residents would be urged to contact the bespoke phone line to obtain assistance with their responses.

iv)       There was no requirement to carry out a Community Infrastructure Levy (CIL) review as it was indexed to the Building Construction Index annually. It was noted that a review of the CIL would only occur after the adoption of the Local Plan as this would allow for consideration of any new proposals and the infrastructure required.

The Portfolio Holder explained that the Secretary of State had made it clear that Local Authorities should proceed with their Local Plans. It was considered that by doing so, house building and construction would help and assist the recovery of the economy post Covid19.

The Chair raised a number of comments including:

·           That the document (SCI) was too focused on the Covid19 crisis and not enough emphasis had been placed on consultation.

·           Challenges to members of the public included the inability to hold public meetings to discuss the SCI and a lack of accessibility to places such as libraries that would ordinarily hold such documents.

·           An SCI should be written for a more normal situation and not during a pandemic especially as it would be in effect for 5 years.

·           In the final version of the SCI, specific groups should not be included and generic terminology should instead be used.

·           The previous SCI had stated that the documents would be available in large print, other languages and braille. The Chair asked the Portfolio Holder to consider reinstating this in the current SCI.

A further list of questions from the Chair and the responses given have been appended to these minutes. These questions were submitted to the Portfolio Holder in advance of the meeting.

Having received no further indications that any other Members of the Committee wished to speak, the Chair thanked the officers and Councillors for their attendance.