And the purpose of the pre submission draft stage..... is what exactly ? - Public forum - Planning Advisory Service (PAS)

I would just like to clarify a few things. There is no 'pre submission draft stage'. I believe you are referring to the 'publication of a development plan document' prior to submission. The preferred options stage has not been 'scrapped'. The 'requirement' to produce a single preferred options report and carry out a separate consultation on it has been removed. If a council wishes to produce a preferred options report, then they can still do so. Secondly, in any event, this has not been 'replaced' with the publication stage. The publication of the DPD in order to receive representations on it now happens before submission whereas it used to happen after submission. This is NOT a draft plan. However, with regard to whether there is opportunity to make changes to a plan after receiving representations, the Manual spells this out here http://www.pas.gov.uk/pas/core/page.do?pageId=66557 I would also like to point out that link also is very clear on the fact that the DPD which is published is the one the local authority believe to be sound, and therefore ready for submission. This is why we are not encouraging changes between publication and submission. The local authority should not be expecting any representations to go to the heart of the plan in any way which suggests it is unsound. Surely if you are to respond effectively to the public, you would do this at the outset of the process. You would use the Sustainable Community Strategy as the starting point, along with the RSS and anything agreeed in the LAA in order to inform the Core Strategy. You would then seek involvement from the community including key delivery stakeholders in order to determine what the DPD should contain, and also which options are likely to be deliverable. This period would also include evidence gathering in order to ensure that what ends up in the DPD is justified and effective and complies with national policy. Not involving the public and stakeholders at the beginning of (and throughout) the process? Not publishing a plan which you think is sound? Using the published plan as a test, and expecting to have to revisit large sections of the plan, perhaps more than once? Now THAT'S crazy!

Yes I understand about front loading, trying to get consensus, etc etc but if you read most LCS and RSS they are vague statements of intent. It is the DPD that provides the detail. Unless the public has an opportunity to see exactly what an Authority is proposing, how can it engage in planning policy and how can the Authority respond effectively before examination? This is a major criticism of the new system. In the preparation of national and regional planning policy, draft documents are presented and comments are invited. Government and the Regional Assemblies then consider the comments before issuing a final version for submission. Why aren't we allowed to engage the public in a similar manner? Why do we have to hide behind options, only releasing our detailed policies and sites at the last minute, too late to make changes in response to public opinion? This is the situation authorities inevitably find themselves in as they get their allocations DPDs to examination. That is the first stage their proposed sites and actual policies are revealed to the public and it is all rather too late. With regard to the question ‘what is the purpose of the pre submission stage?’ neither the Manual nor PPS12 has an explanation. It tells us how to do it and it explains what it isn’t, but what is it for? Is it just a bit of additional warning to the public prior to submission ?

OK, here is my take on it, although as a mere forward planning officer, I may have got it completely wrong! The council can do whatever it wants before it publishes the proposed DPD. That would be likely to include several stages of consultation and involvement, and could easily include a full initial draft of policies and maps for comment. So I don't understand how anyone is "not allowed" to consult the public in any way they want? The Inspector will assess whether there was sufficient opportunity for people to comment, and whether the requirements of the SCI were followed. (See the Inspectorate's list of standard questions for examination on their website). However, the purpose of the "Publication" stage is different. This is the opportunity for people to make formal objection to things which are (or aren't) going into the plan, and therefore have their reps considered by the Inspector, and help to guide the inspector to their more specific questions relating to the soundness of the plan. As I see it, this is definitely NOT part of the Council's consultation process, but a relatively legalistic part of the soundness testing. Remember that the submission stage itself does not have any formal consultation associated with it, so nobody will have the opportunity to make additional comments on any changes, unless they are at the hearing itself. That's why no significant changes should be made between publication and submission. Of course, I am a mere practitioner too, so I may have completely misread all of this!

Simon, As a 'mere practitioner' you have this absolutely spot on. Thank you.

So the purpose of pre submission ‘publication’ is to give the public an early chance to formally object and for the Authority to withdraw with honour before submission, if necessary. And it’s a useful early warning to the Inspector about areas of conflict. If that is its purpose then in terms of public participation we’re back to the old ‘consultation draft’ process aren’t we? It seems to me that is the only honest way to let the public see what the Authority is proposing and for the Authority to make changes before it is too late.

My view is that a council would be wise to include at least one document in its public participation stage (ie before publication) when stakeholders can see in some detail what the council is thinking about publishing. This will help to iron out the wrinkles, and is how we envisaged the Preferred Options Stage anyway, when it existed. Councils can call them what they like (I think we will stick with preferred option, because people seemed to be getting used to that name). I'm not going to comment on the wisdom of withdrawing and re-publishing a DPD as a result of public comments received!

Agreed. So why doesn't PPS12, the Manual or any other govt, guidance for that matter, recommend that ?

Perhaps Adam Dodgshon will give us his thoughts on the last question from PS. No doubt it will be something like giving us the freedom to choose what is most appropriate in our particular contexts and not wishing to be prescriptive. The discussion above seems to me to deal with a particularly generic problem rarther than something that would vary from place to place. It would however completely spoil the message of a more streamlined system if Simon's suggestion if a "preferred options" stage were to be included.

Well I doubt that the changes in the regs will lead to any "streamlining" of the system. They are based on the view that it was the "stages" that were slowing things down, whereas in my opinion it was all the additional evidence and other soundess requirements which were doing that. Unfortunately, the government have been extremely unclear about what level of evidence is needed for a sound plan, preferring to provide requirements piecemeal (think HMA, SHLAA, SFRA, ELR). If LPAs were clear about the breadth and depth of evidence considered sufficient for a sound core strategy, allocations, policy and AAP then we would see a much more confident set of LPAs and considerable progress towards plan preparation. I have undoubtedly strayed from the crux of this thread, though, for which apologies.

I must admit I am getting more and more confused about what we should really be doing. At the event in Wigan I attended the message seemed to be that you no longer need to do the Preferred Options stage (in which I had always thought you had to produce options not just one preferred option), but that you would be well advised for something like a core strategy to do so. The suggestion on this thread is that you should possibly produce a full draft plan as well so you can take account of consultees views on the detail before the pre-submission plan (where you cannot take into account consultee views. I agree with Mike that I think Adam's (or CLG's) views would be welcome and further clearer guidance would be very helpful - and not just a view that says 'it depends' as all Core Strategies should be treated the same in this respect, shouldn't they? As someone trying to re-write an LDS, it makes it very hard to consider timescales we can stick to when the rules seem to constantly change and there is all this uncertainty.

I have read the debate with interest and note the general consensus about the interpretation of the publication of a DPD immediately prior to submission. If this document is simply for people to make representations for the Inspector to consider then what is the difference between that and allowing these representations after submission as under the original process? In simple terms, what exactly has changed?

I note the significant lack of any response to my question. the answer to which must be that nothing has changed except that representations are now invited before an act by the Council (Submission) rather than after. So why make the change? The only logical reason for inviting representations before formal submission would be to enable changes to be made should something unforeseen be submitted. I agree that this should be a rare event but I am not so arrogant or niaive that I could say that we are always 100% right about everything. I am also fully aware that representations will be made at all possible opportunities. The potential to make changes before formal submission would have been a useful change to the system but we seem to have made a change which doesn't actually change anything.

I have heard that some authorities have been able to make suggested changes previously to the Inspector, provided that they do not affect the soundness of the plan and in fact may make it 'sounder'. Is this the case here - ie you can do this before actually submitting now? I too am a little confused about this change that really doesn't seem to have much effect.

At our IE, the Inspector accepted a number of minor changes. GONW, in their response to the submission edition suggested changes that would make the CS "more sound". None of these went to the heart of the strategy and we were not required to undertake consultation on them. We described them as clarifications, updates and minor corrections. We produced a formal list of suggested (not proposed) changes in advance of the PEM. Further changes arose during the examination hearings. The inspector took a reasonably relaxed view of these although had they affected the overall strategy or approach of any of the policies he would have been less forgiving.

Chris Dunford asks, plaintively, ‘what exactly has changed?’ Its a good question. I suggest the main thing that has changed is that whereas previously the public had formal opportunity to contribute their views during the preparation process (reg 26) AND after the plan was completed (reg 29), now – for the first time in 30 years - only the second of these opportunities exists in law. In practice, as other contributors have mentioned, LAs can choose to publish a 'preferred options' report - indeed, the rationale for any plan would surely depend on the work for such a report being done. LAs may also choose to allow formal public consultation on a draft plan (ie with representations within x weeks which, together with responses, are published). Furthermore, new reg 25 requires LAs to decide whether to ‘invite’ … ‘suggestions’ … from ‘residents’, and if they do, to take them into account. All of which leaves both public and LAs uncertain about the rules, and inspectors with unfettered discretion to decide whether consultation has been adequate. This appears to have happened in response to Barker. She proposed that the previous three opportunities for what she called ‘consultation’ should be reduced to two by removing old reg 26 consultation, and keeping informal consultation (reg 25), and responses to the final draft plan (reg 29). The latter she referred to as ‘consultation’; to planners this is representation on a finalized plan and to the general public it is opportunity for formal objection. Presumably DCLG adopted the Barker proposal to seek public response before the plan is submitted (rather than after) in order to promote the fiction that a long established public right to be consulted during the preparation of a plan still exists, while miraculously retaining the same numbering system in the regulations. What a way to run a planning system.