SCI Regulation 28 Statement of Consultation - Scarborough ...

Table 3: Response to Pre-Submission (Draft) SCI via e-mail or electronic copy of questionnaire.
Ref No.
Date Response Consultee Name
Received
DSCI-1 10/01/06 North Yorkshire Travellers Education
DSCI-2 11/01/06 Scarborough Blind & PS Society
DSCI-4 13/01/06 Whitby Hospitality Association
DSCI-5 16/01/06 V Waghorn
DSCI-9 20/01/06 Scarborough Youth Council
DSCI-11 10/01/06 Environment Agency
DSCI-12 26/01/06 East Riding of Yorkshire Council
DSCI-20 06/02/06 Doreen Wort
DSCI-23 09/02/06 Duncan Cowen
DSCI-25 24/01/06 Transpennine Express
DSCI-28 09/02/06 Whitby Civic Society
DSCI-29 09/02/06 Friends of Falsgrave Park
DSCI-30 09/02/06 Government Office for Yorkshire & The
Humber
DSCI-33 13/02/06 Accent Yorkshire
DSCI-35 17/02/06 GL Hearn
DSCI-36 17/02/06 Countryside Agency
DSCI-37 17/02/06 Persimmon Homes (York)
DSCI-38 17/02/06 Scarborough Civic Society
3.7 51 responses were received including responses from 2 County Council departments, 1
adjoining District Council, 8 Parish Councils and 7 specific consultees. In addition 5
responses were received from organisations representing hard-to-reach groups.
3.8 An acknowledgement was sent to all respondees. A copy of this can be found in
Appendix 14.
3.9 A summary of each response was inputted into the ‘Draft SCI’ Access Database. The
database was created for this consultation whilst the Council continued to investigate
the procurement of specific software for the management of the consultee database,
consultation processes and feedback. A summary of the responses (by question number)
was exported to a Word Document for inclusion in the Regulation 26 Draft SCI and this
is appended for information (Appendix 15).
3.10 When analysing the responses to the draft SCI it was clear that question 2: ‘Is the
document easy to read and understand’ caused the most concern. Although the majority
of those who answered the question agreed that it was acceptable, almost a third stated
it was not easy to read. Additionally, comments received concluded that whilst this is a
technical document and a level of jargon is unavoidable, the document could be easier
to read.
3.11 Other areas of concern included:
‣ Pre-application Community Engagement
‣ Versions of documents should be produced in other languages / formats.
How comments will shape Local Development Documents.
11