4.0 Methods for community engagement at the planning application stage

WHY is it NOT MANDATORY to get developers to engage with the local community? Engagement should be the default process not the option. Non engagement should be by justified, reviewed exception

Need to engage with youth to understand hat they would like. It would be great for them to have a skatepark and other activities for teenagers, early on in development.

It is important to hear feedback from consultations so we know what is happening next after planning decisions.

We support the SCI setting out the benefits of pre-application consultation with the local community. However, we wonder if there are means by which the Councils can incentivise developers to consult with local communities and groups.
In responding to development proposals, we have become aware that during the pre-application stage there is no joined up communication between the views of community groups and the views of officers. This can lead to the applicant bringing forward proposals which meet the officers’ views, but which are not supported by the local community, and we have several examples of this. We have raised this issue with the planners previously and they felt that it would be helpful for officers to be aware of local concerns in order to inform the advice they are giving to developers. However, one of the challenges is confidentiality at the pre-application stage. One way around the confidentiality issue would be to ask for the developers’ consent for the planning authority to seek informal local input.
The section on Pre-application advice and consultation could be expanded to encourage a three-way communication between applicant, officer and community/civic group.
To make it easier for developers to consult the community we suggest that the Councils could provide contact details of parish councils, community groups and organisations.
We support the reference to the use of Urban Rooms. The hyperlink takes you to a University of Reading page. Would it not be more appropriate to link people to the University of Cambridge page on an Urban Room for Cambridge. https://www.arct.cam.ac.uk/research/urban-room-cambridge
In relation to the development of strategic sites, holding master planning workshops is another useful tool which can involve all parties (developer, local authority and community) discussing issues and hearing the views of others.

The map function is useful to enable a view of an area that is not a particular parish or city district in order to identify recent applications. This feature is worth highlighting.
It should be possible to search in a way which picks up only planning, and not tree-related, applications. Should tree applications be mentioned in paragraph 4.26?
Paragraph 4.13 could make the role of Design Panels clearer - are they micro or macro or both?
Important applications considered by the JDCC should have an associated Development Control Forum, extending beyond Cambridge City. In addition, for important developments or applications near the edge of the City, a particularly expansive view should be taken of the notifications to give, including across the boundary.
Enforcement efforts need to be stepped up eg no action has been taken in relation to the lamentable lack of monitoring of the no-through planning condition at CBC.

Section 4.1

Please specify which council is responsible for e.g., minerals, waste, solar (or other energy) farms, infrastructure (schools, hospitals, doctor surgeries, petrol stations etc.) planning applications - a table may be useful with type of application and responsible body.

Section 4.2
Pre application discussion with locals should be mandated if they will affect the area – number of dwellings where this is mandated could vary depending on the size of the village, but most parishes would be interested in all development of, say, 5 or more dwellings (1 or more business units).

4.14 to 4.16

What is the threshold for this to apply? Linton did not see consultation with our youth.


4.17

This did not happen for either of the 2 recent large developments in Linton. In the case of Bartlow Road, the developer refused to meet residents or the PC until after their RM application had been submitted, and only then grudgingly. Even at this stage they could have incorporated changes to meet local need, but they chose to ignore everything they were presented with. In the case of the Horseheath Road development, LPC were consulted about the look of the houses and streets. Some of our concerns were addressed, but our major concern over the flow of surface water was ignored with disastrous consequences. How will the councils ensure that developers take all material concerns on board?

Table 4


Why is the word ‘or’ rather than ‘and’ used between ‘site notice’ and ‘neighbour notification’? Tree protection feels as though it is being watered down with Parish Council notification effectively optional, and the current tree team not serving TPOs on trees requested for protection by landowners, parishioners and the parish Council.

section 4.30


This says nothing about a decision being changed after it was made by a planning committee, as happened with land on Balsham Rd Linton. A refusal was publicly recorded in the planning committee meeting, but the decision Notice was not issued while the applicant was given the opportunity to withdraw the application. This is not transparent!



Section 4.34


None of the timelines detailed in the compliance policy are being followed for breaches raised in Linton.

Great Shelford Parish Council considered this document recently and have the following comments:
• Councillors feel that to really engage with people there should always be an executive summary at the beginning of the document to demonstrate the changes which have been made.
• The document talks about ‘how I can get involved’ but does not talk about the process including statutory consultees such as parish councils and how residents can make a representation to their parish council, prior to applications coming to the planning authority. The lack of information about parish council role seems to show the lack of recognition about the role that they play
• Councillors are disappointed to see that the drop ins/roadshows were launched so close to the beginning of the consultation, therefore very little notice provided for people who may have been interested in attending. In addition, both were located to the north of the city and nothing really convenient to those parishes more southerly in the district (south of A14).
• It has been noted that more recent site notices have QR codes directing people to the planning authority’s website. This concerns councillors that this is making them less accessible to residents who do not have smart phones.

Please find attached Historic England's comments on the draft SCI.