To consider the
following planning related reports scheduled for Cabinet
consideration on 11 September:
· Statement of Community Involvement
· Local Development Scheme
· Regulation 18 Local Plan Issues and call for sites
· Boscombe and Pokesdown Neighbourhood Plan
The O&S Board is asked to scrutinise the reports and make recommendations to Cabinet as appropriate.
Cabinet member invited to attend for this item: Councillor Margaret Phipps, Portfolio Holder for Strategic Planning.
The Cabinet reports will be published on Tuesday 3 September 2019 and available to view at the following link:
https://democracy.bcpcouncil.gov.uk/ieListDocuments.aspx?CId=285&MId=3721&Ver=4
Minutes:
Statement of Community Involvement
The Chairman introduced the item. He reminded the Board that it was focussing on risked base policy decision making and therefore questions should be directed to the Cabinet Members. He explained that the Overview and Scrutiny Board had chosen to look at four forthcoming Cabinet reports in relation to Planning issues and invited the Cabinet Portfolio Holder for Strategic Planning to introduce each of the reports:
Statement of Community Involvement (SCI): The Cabinet Portfolio Holder explained that the SCI was a statutory requirement that set out how a local planning authority engaged with its residents when preparing local plans and through the planning application process. In respect of planning applications, different options for notification had been assessed and Cabinet would be asked to approve the recommendation for Option 3 and the SCI proposals for public consultation. The Chairman invited questions from the Board, the following issues were raised:
· A Councillor commented that only 1 in 10 notification letters for planning applications received a response. Therefore why was option 1, which was for site notices only and presented a significant cost saving and reduced environmental impact, not being pursued? The Board was advised that the three preceding authorities had different systems in place at transition and removing letter notifications would come as a shock to residents in Poole and Christchurch and an open and engaging system was needed. Option 3 would allow time for a transition towards more digital communications and was recommended by officers. It was also noted was that it was hoped to reduce the estimated cost of letters – possibly by just reproducing site notices and hand posting to immediate neighbours when site notices were posted.
· A Board member outlined that other planning authorities used an opt-in method for residents to choose to received digital communications of planning applications of interest to them. The Councillor felt that option 3 was the worst of all options as it would mean an arbitrary number of properties would be notified and raised the point that those in higher density accommodation may have less access to technology.
· The Board requested information on complaints received by the preceding authorities about the current processes. It was explained that there was the odd complaint received but records were not available at the meeting. There were pros and cons to each system. The effect in Poole and Christchurch of change would be quite large. A Councillor commented that the statistics for complaints would be useful.
· Another Board member felt that residents in Poole were used to the system currently in place there and to remove it immediately would be a problem. They would be happy to retain letters based on officers’ judgement.
· The Portfolio Holder was asked if they had reviewed the process which took place in Bournemouth when it stopped sending letters. A Councillor suggested there may be some confusion with the change and that there was a role for ward Councillors to play in promoting planning applications with significant public interest. The Cabinet Member responded that there was a statutory obligation to advertise planning applications. Option 3 provided the preferred transition option and savings may be more than outlined. It was felt that eventually BCP Council would move to site notices only and reminded the Board that this was for consultation prior to a final decision.
· A Councillor commented that they would be concerned with the impact of option 1 on the equalities act and felt that option 3 was the best chance of good communication. However, another Councillor commented that a number of planning authorities already used the system set out in option 1 and the equalities act would have been raised on this by now if it was an issue. The Cabinet member suggested that to move to option 1 immediately would risk not engaging properly with residents and there was an opportunity to look into how technology could be utilised in this process.
· The transition element of the decision was not clear from the paper nor was there a timetable for resolution of the SCI. A number of residents would be subject to two sessions of change for no great gain and in reality, this was an issue which was dealt with rarely by residents. A cost-effective solution was needed as soon as possible.
· Another Board member commented that the decision made by Cabinet would go out to consultation and therefore there would be an opportunity to let the public decide.
· Other Councillors not on the Overview and Scrutiny Board spoke in support of letters being sent to affected properties.
Following the questions and debate it was moved and seconded and then subsequently,
RECOMMENDED that:
At recommendation ‘b’ of the Cabinet report, the Cabinet should agree Option 1 as set out in paragraph 11 of the report.
Voting: For: 7; Against: 6; 1 Abstention
The Chairman suggested that paragraph 2.30 of the Statement of Community Involvement be amended to add the following words to the first sentence after the word will “… have the opportunity to …”.
A Board member suggested that Page 12 of the Statement of Community Involvement should be amended to remove Primary Care Trusts and replace it with Clinical Commissioning Groups.
Local Development Scheme – BCP Local Plan
The Portfolio Holder advised that the Cabinet report sought approval of the BCP Council Local Development Scheme (LDS) in order to come into effect from 23 September 2019. The LDS provided the community and other interested parties with an indication of what local plan documents would be prepared by the Council and when. It was noted that BCP Council must produce and adopt a new local plan by 2024. The Chairman asked the Portfolio Holder if there were any risks involved in possible changes to housing requirement numbers from the previous local plans and those being developed in Christchurch and Bournemouth. It was confirmed that until a new local plan was developed the three existing local plans were in operation anyway. All legacy work on emerging existing plans would cease. There was a greater risk in not developing an area wide local plan as Bournemouth could not accommodate the housing figures within the Bournemouth area alone and the area wide plan would enable the issues to be dealt with holistically.
BCP Local Plan Issues and Call for Sites
The Portfolio Holder explained that this report was to seek approval to undertake an initial consultation on possible issues the BCP Local Plan will need to address, as well as to carry out a ‘Call for Sites’ to invite anyone with a potential development site to submit it to the Council for consideration as part of the Local Plan process. In response to a question it was noted that any sites identified by the preceding authorities would be incorporated into the new call for sites. The Portfolio Holder was also asked about the communications plan and it was noted that this was outlined in the report and corporate communications would be heavily involved. A Councillor suggested that they previously found workshops to be a useful tool and suggested that they be included.
Boscombe & Pokesdown Neighbourhood Plan Decision Statement
The Cabinet Portfolio Holder Introduced the report and advised the Board of a couple of amendments to the Wards and the period of time in which the referendum should take place. The local community had put in a lot of work to producing the Neighbourhood Plan which had been examined by an independent Examiner who had recommended that, subject to modifications to the Plan, it may proceed to referendum. The Cabinet report asked Members to agree the Examiner’s recommendations to enable the Neighbourhood Plan to proceed to referendum.
The Chairman expressed some concern that the date may become clouded by other issues and suggested that it should be carefully considered. The date was chosen because the neighbourhood forum had requested to have the referendum as soon as possible and this was the first possible date. It was noted that if it was possible a referendum would likely be combined with another election if one was called. There were some concerns raised about the process for making residents aware of the referendum and what it was for. The Portfolio Holder was asked how the Council would include this within its communication of the referendum. It was confirmed that the local planning authority could apply for £20k of funding to conduct the referendum but a shortfall was expected to be met from within existing budgets. The elections team would prepare a communications plan which would provide residents information on issues around what a neighbourhood plan was and the process but it needed to be careful in not promoting a particular view.
The Board congratulated the Neighbourhood Forum members on the development of the excellent plan. It was noted that there was also funding available to neighbourhood Forums for developing plans and this could be applied for in stages. It was probable that the Forum had already applied for and received all funding it was entitled to at this stage.
The Chairman thanked the Portfolio Holder for attending and providing response to the Board’s enquiries.