Councillors miss opportunity to help public influence plan?

Well I have just finished watching the PED - via the webcast of their meeting today - discussing  agenda item 10 regarding the Proposed Inner Moray Firth Local Development Plan.

The excellent comments made by Councillor Davidson regarding communities and the intervention by Councillor Crawford notwithstanding I must admit I am disappointed.

Why I am disappointed?

Well, Councillors seem to have failed to ask the question, even if only 'for the record', as to what exactly is meant by the term 'Settled View'.  

Why is this important?

It is important because the Councillors of the PED were being asked in part to;

iii. acknowledge that, as the settled view of the Council, the Proposed Plan as approved will be treated as a material planning consideration for development management purposes as of 18 September 2013.

As far as I am aware, a 'Proposed Plan' actually represents what a Council feels the final content of the Plan should be and in reality (according with my previous experience) there is little that can be done (if the Council wishes to simply 'stick to its guns') with respect to achieving any change to that final content through any consultation or Examination by a Reporter.

There was some discussion at the PED  meeting about encouraging the public to put forward their views via a consultation on the Proposed Plan. However all parties failed to explore the effect that the Plan being a 'Settled View' might have on the way in which public submissions through the Proposed Plan consultation could be treated both by the Council and by the Reporter at examination.

Whilst I would not do anything other than encourage full participation in the consultation on this Proposed Inner Moray Firth LDP I contend that the further along in a Plan process you go the less likely you are, as a member of the public particularly, to be able to influence any substantial changes to a 'Proposed Plan' which is a 'Settled View'.

How could we improve this situation?

I would like to see an additional period of time (say 2 weeks) before a 'Proposed Plan' goes before Committee Councillors, whereby all parties and all Councillors can read over the 'Proposed Plan', and, if necessary, the public can ask questions of their elected members so that they can fully understand the implications of the land allocations and Policies in the PP. Councillors could then have the opportunity to raise concerns or to ask for changes to be considered before the Committee Councillors are asked to adopt a PP as a settled view.


I would also like to see a  little extra time set aside - the Government's wishes as expressed in point 58 below notwithstanding - for the Councillors on the Committee and in the areas affected by the plan to read over and digest how the consultation comments on the 'Proposed Plan' have been considered and whether any changes have been made to the 'Proposed Plan' before Councillors agree to send the plan to a Reporter for Examination. 

I am further disappointed that no one questioned, as far as I can remember, why the consultation period was only the minimum 6 weeks and why it was to take place in the run up to Christmas? (Consultation starting late October presumably will go through November and early December?)



Notes

From 'Circular 1 2009: Development Planning'

55. Scottish Ministers expect the proposed plan to represent the planning authority's settled view as to what the final adopted content of the plan should be. This stage should not be used to 'test the water': new or controversial elements of plan content should already have been aired at the main issues report stage (at least as options). Representations by stakeholders and the general public should be concise (no more than 2,000 words plus any limited supporting productions), but should fully explain the issues that people wish to be considered at the examination. There is no automatic opportunity for parties to expand on their representation later in the process. Authorities may therefore wish to consider offering a longer period, of up to 12 weeks for complex plans, to give parties sufficient time to formulate the entirety of their case.

58. From the proposed plan stage, Scottish Ministers expect the authority's priority to be to progress to adoption as quickly as possible. Pre-examination negotiations and notifiable modifications can cause significant delay and so should not be undertaken as a matter of course, but only where the authority is minded to make significant changes to the plan. The examination also provides an opportunity to change the plan, so if authorities see merit in a representation they may say so in their response to the reporter, and leave them to make appropriate recommendations. However, if authorities wish to support a significant change to the plan, especially one that would entail further neighbour notification, this should be done by means of a pre-examination modification.