Development plan amendment regulations: consultation response summary

Question 6

Question 6A)

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

There were 46 responses to Question 6A, which have been set out by respondent type in Table 6 below.

While most of respondents supported the proposal (a combined 65.2%), there were some who disagreed and a few responses were neutral. There was a range of views from the groups represented, with no clear consensus within the group categories.

Question 6B)

Where applicable, please give reasons for your answer.

36 respondents provided further comment at Question 6B.

Summary /Themes

While most of the responses demonstrated support for the 6 week minimum consultation period, further comments received via 6B demonstrated that there were several respondents who thought this would only be appropriate where further guidance or instruction on suitability was provided.

This reflects an emerging theme throughout all responses, calling for further guidance. Additionally, flexibility was a theme, with a few respondents supporting the flexibility a shorter minimum consultation provides, to cater to the details of the amendment being proposed.

Several of the responses that supported the proposal acknowledged that the 6 weeks was a minimum, and that some minor and/or technical amendments may have targeted audiences that would make this appropriate. However, this was also a point for a few responses who were neutral or unsupportive, highlighting that such a system of judgement could be used to rush necessary stakeholder engagement.

One professional representative body was concerned that if the minimum period proposed was routinely adopted this would hamper the ability of communities to be fully engaged in the amendment process.

Opposition with the proposed minimum consultation period was expressed from across the respondent groups, with most of the unsupportive responses stating that 6 weeks was not long enough. The reasons stated ranged from a planning authority's ability to adequately respond within 6 weeks given their internal decision making processes, to the risk that community groups who meet less regularly would be unable to form responses in time.

Some responses suggested that the more typical 12-week minimum consultation period would be more appropriate and allow enough time for all stakeholders to respond.