APPENDIX 2

Hampshire Minerals and Waste Development Framework

-

Statement of Community Involvement

*

Extract from Statement of Consultation Compliance

August 2005

1 Introduction

1.1 The Statement of Community Involvement, part of the Hampshire Minerals and Waste Development Framework, has undergone informal and formal consultation and has now been submitted to Government. It will be subject to one further stage of formal consultation before independent examination and later adoption by Hampshire County Council.

1.2 Hampshire County Council has prepared this report, as required by paragraph 4.14 of Planning Policy Statement 12, describing how the requirements for consultation up to this point have been complied with.

2 Regulation 25 - community involvement and informal consultation

2.1 Between September 2003 and February 2005 Hampshire County Council ran an ongoing stakeholder dialogue process, bringing together representatives from many sectors of the local community as well as a wide range of business interests and representatives of Hampshire County Council, Portsmouth City Council and Southampton City Council. The ongoing community involvement required for the Hampshire Minerals and Waste Development Framework will build on the community involvement that has already taken place.

2.2 To comply with Regulation 25 of the Town and Country Planning (Local Development) (England) Regulations 2004 and to find out more about how the Hampshire community would like to be involved in the planning process, on 21 March 2005 Hampshire County Council wrote to 401 consultees on 21 March 2005, enclosing a questionnaire and requesting a response by 18 April 2005. Annex 1 of this report contains a copy of the response form, and Annex 2 a list of all consultees.

2.3 Following the guidance set out in Regulation 25(2)¹, the list included the South East England Regional Assembly, relevant authorities (county, unitary, district and parish councils) in and around Hampshire and the Highways Agency. The letter was also sent to a number of other stakeholders, including residents associations, planning consultancies, Government agencies, minerals and waste operators and interest groups.

2.4 The responses to the questionnaire were used to shape the Draft Statement of Community Involvement in preparation, through helping to identify the most appropriate and preferred methods of community involvement.

3 Summary of Reg. 25 responses

3.1 The questionnaire comprised 10 questions, combining tick-box responses with opportunities for written comments. Of the 401 letters sent out, 146 responses were received, a response rate of 36.4%. Of these, 122 (84%) were received within the set timescale. As this consultation was an informal one, the 16% of responses received after the closing date were on this occasion included in the analysis.

3.2 Responses were received from the following groups:

Table 1 - Reg. 25 response groups

3.3 The following questions were asked of respondents; responses are summarised below each question, along with an indication of how the responses will be treated.

Q.1 Which parts of the Minerals and Waste Development Framework (the new Minerals and Waste Local Plan) are you particularly interested in?

· The majority of respondents expressed interest in the Waste Management Sites Plan, followed by the Minerals Sites Plan, the Core Strategy and the Sustainability Appraisal.

· Action: Comments Noted

Q.2 We will be using the internet and e-mail as much as possible to reach stakeholders and involve the community in preparing planning documents and deciding on planning applications - are you happy to communicate via e-mails and the internet?

· By far the majority of respondents (73%) were willing to communicate electronically. However, 18.5% did not want to communicate in this way, and their preference will be taken into account.

· Action: Comments Noted

Q.3 If you answered 'No' then how would you prefer to be kept informed?

· The majority of respondents to this question preferred to be kept informed by letter or through their parish or town council. There was also some interest in the use of newsletters.

· A number of individual comments were made, including noting the need for hard copies but also noting that supplying copies of documents is helpful since printing of large numbers of documents is difficult or impossible

· Action: Noted - ensure that a choice of formats is available.

Q.4 Are you most likely to be involved as a private individual or as a representative of an organisation?

· The majority of respondents (parish councils) indicated that they would act as representatives of an organisation

· Action: Comments Noted

Q.5 If you are part of an organisation, are you most like to consult with colleagues and make a joint response, or circulate the consultation and let individuals respond separately?

· The majority of respondents (92.5%) noted that they would consult with member or colleagues and make a joint response.

· Action: Comments Noted

Q.6 Do you have any specific comments about consultation and community involvement on planning applications ?

· This open-ended question generated a range of responses, which included the following:

· Support for increased community involvement, particularly through Parish Councils; timescales for response are too short and should be increased (mentioned several times); the issue of buffer zones around quarries or waste sites and compensation for affected communities was raised;

· Hampshire County Council should provide feedback on how respondents' information has been used, and on final decisions and plans; use of local newspapers, parish magazine and leaflets to involve local communities

· Making available comments from other consultees, particularly the statutory agencies, would be helpful; provision of more explanatory and visual material would be helpful

· Action: Comments Noted

Q.7 What are the best way(s) of involving you in the general decision-making process for minerals and waste planning applications?

· Consulting Parish Councils, neighbour notification and placing notices in newspapers in newspapers were all favoured; however, each of the methods suggested (including consulting amenity societies and placing information in libraries) had support.

· A number of specific comments were also made, including notification of strategic applications to neighbouring minerals and waste authorities; formal consultation with planning authorities; use of e-mails and e-planning; local notices, exhibitions and displays.

· Action: Comments noted

Q.8 For major applications (e.g. quarries, large waste processing sites), would you find it helpful to have:

· Of the choices provided, the majority of respondents advocated public meetings organised or led by the County Council; exhibitions and displays and public meetings organised or led by parish or town councils were also favoured.

· Of the specific comments made, many centred on the use of public meetings, and how they should be organised; whether they should be run by parish, district or county; information to be supplied.

· Action: Comments noted.

Q.9 Where would you like to see planning applications and any associated documents put so that you could see them most easily?

· The majority of respondents favoured putting the information onto websites, but there was strong support for council offices and libraries also.

· In the other comments made, there was very strong support for having copies of applications and supporting documents sent direct to relevant Parish Councils

· Action: Comments noted

Q.10 Do you have any comments or suggestions about how community involvement on planning applications is currently managed? Is there anything you would like changed, or improved?

· A wide range of comments was received, including: benefits of public meetings; use of media campaigns, including television; open days specifically involving children; local exhibitions and local authority publicity.

· Greater opportunities for local residents to present their case to elected representatives; more local (poster) advertising; pre-application discussions; increased consultation with Parish Councils, including Parish Councils adjacent to those where development is proposed; more involvement of local groups and societies; place more information the web.

· Action: Comments noted

Q.11 Do you have any further suggestions on how we can best help you to be involved in minerals and waste planning in Hampshire?

· Again a wide range of comments were received, including: noting the benefits of continuing to use stakeholder workshops; public meetings and presentations to local groups; increased use of e-planning (i.e. e-mails and the internet, access to planning application related documents via the internet)

· Increased use of the media (TV and radio) came up again, along with posters, leaflets and local newspapers; the importance of establishing good dialogue between Hampshire County Council and local communities was mentioned.

· It would be helpful to make any material relating to planning applications easier to understand, e.g. by summarising it; and keep residents and Parish Councils fully informed about local issues.

· Action: Comments noted

3.4 This first informal consultation was helpful in developing an initial impression of the wishes and preferences of the Hampshire community for how they become involved in minerals and waste planning. The comments made were noted and taken into account during the production of the Draft Statement of Community Involvement and the reg. 26 consultation, the first statutory consultation.

4 Reg. 26 - first statutory consultation

4.1 Following the Regulation 25 consultation, the first statutory consultation under Regulation 26 of the Town and Country Planning (Local Development) (England) Regulations 2004 was undertaken. The following approaches were used.

4.3 An advertisement was placed in the following five newspapers:

· Hampshire Chronicle

· Daily Echo

· Basingstoke Gazette

· Fleet News

· Alton Herald

Between them their circulation was considered to cover the whole county.

4.4 A copy of the Statement of Community Involvement and the response form were placed on the minerals and waste website during the period of the consultation. Respondents had the option of printing the response form and returning it by post, or filling it out digitally and e-mailing it back.

4.5 Copies of the Statement of Community Involvement, the response form and reply-paid envelopes were sent to all District Council offices, with a request that they be displayed in their reception area.

4.6 Copies of the Statement of Community Involvement, response form and reply-paid envelopes were available from the Hampshire County Council Environment Department offices reception area.

4.7 Copies of Statement of Community Involvement and response forms were sent to each of the five Hampshire County Council Information Centres. Copies were also provided for distribution among the County Council Local Information Points.

4.8 Copies of the Statement of Community Involvement and response forms were sent to each of the County libraries, with a request that they be displayed.

4.9 A copy of SCI, response form and reply-paid envelope sent to each person or organisation listed on our database. In all, approximately 855 copies of the Statement of Community Involvement were sent out.

5 Responses received

5.1 Fewer responses (73) were received to the Regulation 26 consultation within the timescale set. These are broken down in Table 2 below.

Table 2 - Reg. 26 responses

5.2 Annex 3 of this report is a copy of the Regulation 26 response form, and Annex 4 is a summary of all comments received and Hampshire County Council responses to the comments.

5.3 The key issues raised from this consultation, as measured by the numbers of comments received regarding these issues, were as follows.

5.4 The issue of neighbour notification was clearly the most important issue identified in this consultation. Current development control practice, and proposed for site-related policy work, is to notify neighbouring properties (in certain circumstances) within 50m in urban areas and within 100 metres outside urban areas. Many respondents felt these distances were inadequate, and should be increased.

5.5 The County Council stance is to retain these set neighbour notification distances, but to use officer discretion in considering the circumstances of each application and where appropriate (e.g. on the basis of the terrain surrounding the site, or traffic generated or other relevant factors) to increase the neighbour notification distances.

5.6 Consultation periods were also raised by several respondents, noting that the Hampshire Compact recommends a 12 week response period for voluntary bodies. This point is noted, but Hampshire County Council as with all planning authorities is under considerable pressure to meet statutory planning deadlines. It is therefore considered impossible to amend the response periods.

5.7 Presentation issues were raised, with some respondents seeking a far more graphically presented and illustrated document. Again this point was noted, but resource pressures prevented the substantial restructuring of the document. However, a Plain English audit will be undertaken on the finished version, to improve its clarity.

5.8 Definition of terms was the other main issue raised, and in each case the terms causing confusion have been clarified or defined.

5.9 See Annex 4 for further detail.

6 Next step - Regulation 28

6.1 The Statement of Community Involvement has been revised in the light of the comments made, in preparation for submission to the First Secretary of State and also for the second round of statutory consultation under Regulation 28 of the Town and Country Planning (Local Development) (England) Regulations 2004.