Agenda item

that the report be noted – and that as part of the development of the next stage of the proposals for the revision of the statement of community involvement - officers should take the Committee’s comments into consideration as follows:

·         The Committee believes that further work should take place to consider how best to represent and consult ward assemblies and other community groups that are interested in their local areas – but not specifically focuses on planning/conservation.

·         That this work should consider how to engage with seldom heard groups.

·         The Committee also believes that the process for determining the validity, formal status and level of representation of amenity groups should be as transparent and open as possible. The Committee would welcome further information about the ways in which the Council will determine the representativeness of groups (in the planned future report to Committee).

4.1    Michael Forrester (Head of Development Management) introduced the report setting out a brief summary of the local democracy review process and the proposed amendment of the statement of community involvement. In particular – it was noted that the current statement of community involvement had been in place since 2006 and was no longer considered fit for purpose.

4.2    Michael Forrester and Emma Talbot (Director of Planning) responded to questions from the Committee – the following key points were noted:

·         The statement of community involvement would set out how residents and communities would be consulted on planning applications.

·         The development of the new document would include engagement with members - and with the planning community forum (which met quarterly).

·         Consultation would last for a minimum of six weeks.

·         Officers wanted to include an expectation that for major developments, the public should be involved at a stage that they could have a meaningful impact on a scheme rather than after it had been submitted.

·         It was intended that communities would be involved when developers were putting together plans - rather than when work has already been started.

·         It was planned that early engagement would ensure that there was more transparency in the planning process.

·         Since the adoption of the last statement of community involvement there had been a noticeable increase in the number of people who were interested in planning decisions in their local areas.

·         There were no current agreements about how amenity societies should be constituted, managed and recognised.

·         At present and amenity societies could request that planning decisions be taken by a committee (rather than delegated to officers). Through the revised process - it was proposed that there be a formal designation for amenity societies and a clearer distinction between comments and ‘call-ins’ from societies. This would also clarify which amenity societies had call in powers for which areas.

·         The ambition also was that amenity societies should be reflective of their communities (as had been proposed in the Democracy Review)

·         The statement of community involvement would set out the process for smaller and larger schemes; there would be measures related to the formal agreements for larger planning proposals and the anticipated requirements in place for bigger developers on major schemes

·         Ward assemblies were not included in the list of amenity societies

·         The planning service engaged closely with ward assemblies - and provided updates for a broader range of groups, as required.

·         Previously, there had been a fortnightly forum for amenity societies to meet with officers and review all of the upcoming planning permissions. Due to officer workloads and the significant increase in planning applications - it was not proposed that this should be continued and it had not operated for some years.

·         The planning community forum provided a space for a range of constituted community groups to engage with the planning service on thematic issues.

·         The work on the statement of community involvement would not change the number or composition of planning committees – or the thresholds for calling in decisions. There was a parallel process taking place (being led by the Director of Law, Governance and Elections) reviewing the constitution.

·         Officers had considered statements of community involvement from other London authorities – Lewisham had the oldest

·         Lewisham’s statement of community involvement reflected elements of the Council’s constitution – which made it relatively inflexible. It was proposed that repetition should be avoided

4.3       In the Committee’s discussion – the following key point was also noted:

·         Members emphasised the importance of engaging with residents in wards in which there weren’t any amenity societies.

4.4    Resolved: that the report be noted – and that as part of the development of the next stage of the proposals for the revision of the statement of community involvement - officers should take the Committee’s comments into consideration as follows:

·         The Committee believes that further work should take place to consider how best to represent and consult ward assemblies and other community groups that are interested in their local areas – but not specifically focuses on planning/conservation.

·         That this work should consider how to engage with seldom heard groups.

·         The Committee also believes that the process for determining the validity, formal status and level of representation of amenity groups should be as transparent and open as possible. The Committee would welcome further information about the ways in which the Council will determine the representativeness of groups (in the planned future report to Committee).