Development plan amendment regulations: consultation response summary

Non-Standard Responses

Summary

Of the 50 responses received to this consultation, three of them (6%) were submitted in a different format and did not directly answer the questions laid out in the consultation paper. These responses instead included broad comments on the proposals put forward and are analysed qualitatively only.

There was no consistent theme across these responses. Two of the respondents were supportive of the intent behind the proposals and offered understanding towards the aim of being flexible and responsive within the amendment process.

One response did not provide detailed commentary of the proposals, but rather stated their support for the overall objective of a planning system that is responsive and streamlined while ensuring due process and appropriate justification for any amendments.

Another response provided general remarks on the proposals put forward, acknowledging the need for proportionate processes and flexibility, while calling for consistency throughout the amendment and making processes for both NPF and LDPs.

This response stated the importance of a consistent process within the whole development plan, and as such did not agree with the consultation timescales proposed for amending the NPF. Additionally, they raised a concern over the appropriateness of a 6 week minimum consultation period, suggesting that this could cause challenges with regards to planning authority timescales.

The third response was critical of the proposals for amendment regulations, stating that they did not feel the proposals made sense without further detailed guidance or information. This respondent asked for further clarity on the timelines and triggers for amending the NPF, and more clarity on the expectations on planning authorities with regards to approval, consultation and Justification of Amendment statements when it comes to amending a LDP.

This response focused on aspects within the proposals which would be considered subjective, such as the where the consultation paper states, "those considered appropriate to the specific amendment being proposed" and throughout the response requested further detail be provided before an opinion can be given. They also remarked that many of the proposals will result in further tasks for the planning authorises and that some smaller authorities may struggle in terms of resources.