Development plan amendment regulations: consultation response summary

Question 21

Question 21A)

To what extent do you agree with the proposed minimum 6 weeks consultation period, understanding that the timescale may be extended when deemed appropriate given the scale of the amendment?

There were 43 responses to Question 21A, which have been set out by respondent type in Table 21 below.

While most of the respondent were supportive of the proposal (84.1%), there were seven respondents who disagreed and a single neutral response. Other than within the Key Agency & Other Public Sector grouping, who all agreed with the proposal, there were a range of differing views from the other groups represented.

Question 21B)

Where applicable, please give reasons for your answer.

34 respondents provided further comment at Question 21B.

Summary /Themes

Most of the responses demonstrated support for the 6 week minimum consultation period, with further comments demonstrating that several respondents thought this would only be appropriate as a minimum and that further guidance or instruction on suitability or criteria for this would be required.

The variety of comments within the set groups demonstrates this to be an issue which there are various opinions on. While all of Key Agency & Other Public Sector group supported the proposal, most of the Professional Representative Bodies who responded did not.

The main theme arising was that of flexibility. Similar to the responses to question 6B on consultation timescales with regards to NPF, respondents generally felt that the intent and rationale for this proposal was acceptable and that a proportionate approach was correct.

However, even from a few respondents who were supportive, there was a concern around ensuring meaningful consultation within a 6 week timescale, even if the Scottish Government produce further guidance.

The unsupportive responses came from across 4 of the 5 groups represented, with most of unsupportive responses stating that 6 weeks was not long enough and reiterating their response to question 6B.

There was a single response who, although marked 21A as 'strongly agree', made clear in their comments that they would not consider 6 weeks to be sufficient in most circumstances and feel the traditional 12 week period is more appropriate.