Making Amendments to Statements of Community Involvement - Public forum - Planning Advisory Service (PAS)

If it is a significant revision to an existing SCI I would assume Reg 26 would still apply. Or do you mean a change in response to an earlier stage of consultation? We recently revised our SCI to update and simplify and undertook a single round of consultation before publishing.

Hi Vicky, No, it is not a change resulting from a response to an earlier consultation, nor is it just changing wording; more a change resulting from a proposed amendment to the approach of our DPDs. It is one of these issues where we said we would go over and above what the Regulations and PPS12 expect of consulting on a DPD and we now think a slightly different approach would be better to align with changes we want to make to our LDS. The problem I face is how can I take to Cabinet a Revised LDS which says one thing - whilst the adopted SCI says we will do something else in terms of consulting on a DPD. I know they have two different roles, however there are challenging procedural issues surrounding the fact that the SCI is adopted by resolution of Council and the LDS would be adopted by its Executive only So does one change constitute a revision and therefore a need to implement Reg 26? - if so we might as well revise the whole thing to take into account of the changes to DC practice too - which is a slightly bigger job than we first thought.

Good practise would suggest that you absolutely should be involving people in its revision before it is consulted on formally. The very nature of the document would dictate that it most certainly cannot be produced / revised in isolation as its purpose is to provide more effective consutlation in planning and therefore should be informed by those we are trying to consult with.

Hi - we made broadly the kind of change you are suggesting - and also updated to reflect changes in regs etc since our last SCI. To add to my earlier answer we did a fairly simple general consultation asking how people preferred to get involved (with a surveymonkey type survey on Facebook and web, and questionnaires at a consultation shop already taking place as well as writing to some groups/organisations for their views). We used this feedback to prepare a revised draft for consultation. This didn't prove to be as onerous as it sounds as it did start from the point of editing an existing document rather than drafting something new. However, I wonder if your Cabinet would agree the LDS with the proviso that you will review the SCI shortly rather than delay the LDS? I couldn't find anything formal about adoption of the SCI so our's didn't go to Cabinet for any formal resplution - instead being agreed by a member reference group - but perhaps that is your Council's requirement. Either way I would agree that consultation of some sort would be good practice.

Thanks for your comments - it is reassuring. I think the SCI being adopted by Council is in the Local Authority Functions and Responsibilities Regulations, rather than anything we have ourself. As it is part of the policy framework of the Council, it cannot be approved by our Cabinet alone, and needs resolution of full council to come into effect. Looking at other authorities - most have done the same, so you may want to check whether your SCI legally exists under the current agreement.

I don't think SCIs are legally required to be adopted by a meeting of full Council as my understanding was that this requirement only applied to development plan documents; and that an SCI is an local development document, but not part of the development plan.

Good point Geoff - I will have to raise that one with our Democratic Manager and take it from there.

There has been a legal challenge (qcs letter) to a failure to consult on changes at the Luton and South Beds core strategy. The change involved delting an ommissions sites consultation stage. See Petter villages letter at the exmaination website.