To receive Report No.97/2020 from the Interim Strategic Director of Places.

Report No.97/2020 was received from the Interim Strategic Director of Places.

Councillor G Brown, Portfolio Holder for Environment, Planning, Property and Finance introduced the report the purpose of which was to to consider the responses to the consultation undertaken on the draft revised Statement of Community Involvement which had been the subject of a non-statutory public consultation exercise.

The review of the Statement of Community Involvement (SCI) had been undertaken in order to:        

·       Encompass statutory changes to planning regulations for policy making, neighbourhood planning and development management and

·       Allow national guidance in relation to Covid 19 to be incorporated into the SCI ensuring that the planning function could continue to operate within current restrictions.

During discussion the following points were noted:

·       The Public had expressed concerns about the accessibility to the SCI for those residents without internet, however research showed that this applied to only a small number of people and accounted for approximately 8% of the Rutland population.

·       The Council would look to Parish and Town Councils to help their residents access hard copies of the document in the most suitable way according to circumstance.

·       Residents would also be able to make appointments at Catmose to view a hard copy.

·       Councillor Begy felt that 8% of the population was still too high a figure and that despite the use of other media such as radio and press to communicate, the Council should write to every household explicitly explaining the way in which everyone could engage and access documentation.

·       The SCI detailed the minimum engagement that the Council was obliged to deliver but it planned to do more including contacting all Council tax payers and businesses via post.

·       Councillor Brown could not guarantee that all residents would be reached, although it would use its database of residents who had taken an interest in the Local Plan and also urge Parishes to help the Council identify residents and get the message across.

·       In response to a deputation that had been received, Councillor Brown confirmed that the Parish Forum was not a constituted body and therefore not a place where they could make representations on the soundness of the SCI and the Local Plan. Parishes could instead call their own meeting and have the SCI as a specific agenda item.

·       Over the last five months RCC had been well engaged with Parish Councils through the medium of the Parish Briefings and the fortnightly parish council conference call. These would continue throughout the consultation period.

·       There were resourcing issues about accessing the documents at the three Rutland libraries outside of Oakham, two of which were open on a very limited basis. However discussions to enable this were ongoing with the relevant parish or town council.

·       Committee members felt that there should be more engagement with young people and students as the Local Plan would be affecting their future. Varied and increased use of social media should be used to deliver this.

·       Councillor Razzell, the Council’s Armed Forces Champion, queried how the Council would be communicating with the Armed Services given their transient nature.  Councillor Brown confirmed that visits to Kendrew and St Georges Barracks would be made but acknowledged that as some of the forces personnel were not Council Tax payers, not all of them would be reached by the proposed mail out.

·       The resource required and the subsequent cost of contacting 100% of residents rose exponentially and therefore Councilor Brown felt that that the extent to which the Council committed to contacting every single resident had to be carefully considered. The Council had had 130 plus responses so far having identified and contacted relevant groups, including approximately 1700 residents via the Local Plan newsletter. In addition, although the Government had been clear that it did not require documents to be available at Council offices, RCC had implemented this.

·       The Peer Review had identified that there needed to be improved communication between the County Council and Parish Councils and the new Interim Chief Executive, Mark Andrews planned to take up this issue.

·       Roger Ranson, the Planning Policy Manager, in response to a question from Councillor MacCartney, confirmed that the Strategic Environmental Assessment (SEA) and the Habitats Regulation Assessment (HRA) would be included in the Supplementary Planning documentation and would be consulted on.

·       Councillor Jones raised concerns outlined in a deputation which had criticised the questionnaire for containing leading questions and for contradicting the Gunning principles. Councillor Brown was therefore asked whether he felt that Scrutiny and full Council should have had an opportunity to discuss the questionnaire before it was issued. In response, Councillor Brown again stated that there was no legal requirement for the Council to go out to consultation on the proposed changes to the SCI however the Council had undertaken a public consultation exercise and made changes in response to concerns raised.

·       Regardless of the Covid crisis, there was not an option to delay the consultation as the Secretary of State, Robert Jenrick had made it very clear in his statements that Local Plans must proceed, and with haste, in order that housing building continued and homes could be delivered. The Secretary of State was to be kept informed of the Council’s timetable for the Plan submission.

·       The role of a Ward Councillor in the SCI process was to consult and discuss with their Parish Council and to share information with the Executive. The Leader, Councillor Hemsley feel that it was not the ward member’s responsibility to contact every resident with limited internet access.

·       The duty of the Council under the Equality Act to those with protected characteristics had been noted and a number of measures had been put in place to ensure that the impacts were minimised for those who had a protected characteristic. Councillor Brown pointed out that this had been a key consideration.

·       Councillor Razzell wanted to make sure that the focus was not just on one particular area and that other Rutland communities ensured that their voice was heard as the Plan affected the whole of the County. Councillor Brown concurred and added that one of the advantages of Rutland was that every area, including those most isolated, was covered by a Parish Council or Meeting and therefore there was an opportunity for views to be fed in via them.

·       Councillor MacCartney reminded Councillors that despite Robert Jenrick’s request for Councils to ‘move at pace’, Rutland did currently have a Local Plan and therefore was not at risk of the secretary of state getting involved. Councillor Brown stressed that the Council needed to deliver 160 houses per year and whilst it had a 5 year housing supply at present, without adding additional sites it would come under increasing pressure. Without a five year housing supply there was a risk of inappropriate development plans anywhere within the County and the Council risked losing any objections on appeal.

·       Councillors assured members of the public who were listening that all deputations had been considered carefully and formed the basis of their discussion tonight. In addition, all councillors were reaching out to residents so that their concerns could be heard.

--o0o--

The Chair invited questions and comment from non-committee members.

---o0o---

·       Councillor Powell, welcomed the review by the new Chief Executive into the Council’s engagement with Parishes.The point was also made that although it had been stated that less than 10% were without internet access, those who did have it often used phones and tablets on which it was difficult to download and view the detail of planning documents and plans. Therefore work with parishes should be done to make hard copies as accessible as possible.

·       It was not the Council’s plan to provide hard copies of planning applications, except where it was a significant development and major application, due to the cost involved. However every Parish Council or Meeting would receive one hard copy of the Regulation 19 documentation as a matter of course and further copies if they were needed.

·       Copies of documents could always be requested but a fee would be charged.

RESOLVED

That the Committee RECOMMENDS that Cabinet should, as part of adoption of the amended and revised Statement of Community Involvement;

1.    Write to all Rutland households to explain the various ways in which they can respond to the consultation.

2.    Review the use of social media in particular the channel mix being used.

3.    Encourage Parish Councils either via the Parish Council Forum or through the fortnightly briefings to explore best practice in providing the most appropriate access for their residents who don’t have access to the internet.

4.    Constantly review how the Council is engaging with its residents, and articulate what good engagement looks like, including the setting of attainment targets for consultation response.

5.    Increase communication with schools to engage pupils.