25.06.2014 Views

SCI Regulation 28 Statement of Consultation - Scarborough ...

SCI Regulation 28 Statement of Consultation - Scarborough ...

SCI Regulation 28 Statement of Consultation - Scarborough ...

SHOW MORE
SHOW LESS

Create successful ePaper yourself

Turn your PDF publications into a flip-book with our unique Google optimized e-Paper software.

Question 5: Does the <strong>SCI</strong> demonstrate clearly how the results <strong>of</strong> the community<br />

involvement will shape future Local Development Documents?<br />

Number <strong>of</strong> Responses<br />

Of those who replied Yes or No<br />

Yes No No Response %age Yes %age No<br />

19 (37.3%) 4 (7.8%) <strong>28</strong> (54.9%) 82.6% 17.4%<br />

Question 6: Does the <strong>SCI</strong> clearly describe how the Council will consult the<br />

community on planning applications?<br />

Number <strong>of</strong> Responses<br />

Of those who replied Yes or No<br />

Yes No No Response %age Yes %age No<br />

18 (35.3%) 1 (2%) 32 (62.7%) 94.7% 5.3%<br />

3.2.2 When analysing the above it is clear that question 2: ‘Is the document easy to read and<br />

understand’ caused the most concern. Although the majority <strong>of</strong> those who answered<br />

the question agreed that it was acceptable, almost a third stated it was not easy to read.<br />

Additionally, comments received concluded that whilst this is a technical document<br />

and a level <strong>of</strong> jargon is unavoidable, the document could be easier to read.<br />

3.2.3 Other areas <strong>of</strong> concern included:<br />

‣ Pre-application Community Engagement<br />

‣ Versions <strong>of</strong> documents should be produced in other languages / formats.<br />

‣ How comments will shape Local Development Documents.<br />

(a)<br />

Readability <strong>of</strong> <strong>SCI</strong><br />

3.2.4 Whilst the majority <strong>of</strong> respondents agreed that the document was accessible, a<br />

significant number stated that the document was difficult to read, excessive in length<br />

and contained a degree <strong>of</strong> ‘jargon’. It is accepted that as the document is <strong>of</strong> a technical<br />

nature there are issues over the readability <strong>of</strong> the document. In particular, the level <strong>of</strong><br />

‘jargon’ and acronyms is an unfortunate result <strong>of</strong> the revised planning system which<br />

has only led to a greater use <strong>of</strong> abbreviations (e.g. <strong>SCI</strong>, LDD, LDF, LDS, etc). To<br />

combat this issue a glossary <strong>of</strong> terms and explanation <strong>of</strong> acronyms / abbreviations will<br />

be included in the Submission <strong>SCI</strong>. In addition and following adoption <strong>of</strong> the <strong>SCI</strong>, the<br />

Council will produce a leaflet summarising the main points <strong>of</strong> the <strong>SCI</strong> and how the<br />

public can become involved in the planning system.<br />

(b)<br />

Pre-application Community Engagement<br />

3.2.5 The draft <strong>SCI</strong> confirmed the intention <strong>of</strong> the Development Control section to produce<br />

two protocol documents; the “Major Applications Protocol” and the “Pre-Application<br />

Community Engagement <strong>Statement</strong>”. The intention <strong>of</strong> the latter <strong>of</strong> these is to provide<br />

guidance to developers and identify the types <strong>of</strong> proposal where pre-application<br />

community involvement will be encouraged. This may relate to the size <strong>of</strong> the<br />

development site or its potential to impact on the local community.<br />

3.2.6 The statement will advise developers on the methods <strong>of</strong> community engagement<br />

relevant to the type <strong>of</strong> proposal. In cases where pre-application engagement is<br />

considered necessary, developers will be expected to submit with their application a<br />

statement <strong>of</strong> what action they have taken to involve the local community.<br />

3.2.7 Whilst this proposed document was welcomed by both developers and the<br />

community, some concerns were raised by a number <strong>of</strong> developers relating to the<br />

193

Hooray! Your file is uploaded and ready to be published.

Saved successfully!

Ooh no, something went wrong!