A 'Report by Director of Planning and Development' - as described below - can be found on THC web pages:"This report outlines the content of the Development Plan Scheme 2010, including
timescales for production of the Highland wide Local Development Plan and initial
preparatory stages of the Inner Moray Firth Local Development Plan. The report also identifies key issues raised as part of the Main Issues Report consultation on the Highland wide Local Development Plan which took place between August and November 2009.
This report was presented as agenda item 12 at today's
PLANNING, ENVIRONMENT AND DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE meeting. Click here
Page 11 (of 36) covers the inital preparatory stages of the 'Inner Moray Firth Development Plan'.
The volume and quality of public comments on the HwLDP was remarkable. All the more regrettable, therefore, that the Highland Council's summary of the key issues raised during the consultation (contained in the report linked above) is so selective and partial.
ReplyDeleteIt does begin to look as if the planners are cherry-picking only certain elements from the public response which relate to the detail of implementation. There seems to be little recognition by the Council that many people regard the fundamental assumptions underlying the Council's vision and plan (eg about population growth, the link with employment, etc) are flawed, and that the HwLDP needs a radical re-write.
APTSec must admit that the volume of responses seemed a little low to her, especially in realtion to the number of comments that were made through previous statutory and non-statutory processes.
ReplyDeleteIf the number of responses was lower than might have been expected (or lower than other similar previous exercises?) then it's important to explore why.
ReplyDeleteIs it that people don't understand? Don't think it matters? Don't care? Don't think their comments will make any difference?
If it's any or all of the above then Highland Council, and all who live in the region, have got a big problem. No point in pressing for wide consultation if the people aren't bovvered, or don't actually want to be consulted.
I think this is important comment which deserves the attention of another post. I am busy locating the figures to illustrate the point but the relevant council committee papers (ILP responses) seem absent from the web site.
ReplyDeleteMy initial comment mentioned both the VOLUME and the QUALITY of the comments on the HwLDP MIR. It is important not to fall into the trap of dwelling on the figures alone.
ReplyDeleteOf course some significance has to be attached to the number of responses. But that is not the only measure of effective consultation.
Arguably quality is more important than quantity. A modest number of perceptive and thoughtful comments are more valuable than large numbers of letters all saying simply "we do, or don't, agree".
The real test of effective consultation is how far the authors (Highland Council planners) take on board the substantive comments and criticisms that are made, and change the core elements of the draft plan to reflect this. On present evidence (the summary of comments offered to Councillors) the planners appear profoundly unreceptive to the fundamental criticisms that many consultees put forward. This bodes ill for the shape of the actual Plan itself.
In the long term, if planners ignore or discount the public's representations, this will reinforce the already widespread belief that the consultation process is a sham and thus not worth engaging in. And that would be very unhealthy for the region's future.