2012 01 neighbourhood planning consultation response

Online only

In October 2012 Communities and Local Government launched a consultation on Neighbourhood Planning regulations. The consultation aimed to consider whether the proposed approach to taking up the regulation making powers in the Localism Bill (now Act) with regard to neighbourhood planning struck the right balance between standardising the approach across the country and providing sufficient local flexibility to reflect local circumstances.

The consultation sought views on the regulations with regard to establishing neighbourhood areas and forums, the requirements of Community Right to Build organisations, the preparation of neighbourhood plans, neighbourhood development orders and Community Right to Build Orders. Further details about the regulations and the consultation can be found here

Basis of our response
Our response draws on the research we have done on community rights and neighbourhood planning, both nationally and in the local authority area of Dudley, and on action research around community led planning.

Urban Forum's response

Question 1:
Do you agree that the proposed approach is workable and proportionate, and strikes the right balance between standardising the approach for neighbourhood planning and provide local flexibility on the following - (a) to (l):

a) Designating neighbourhood areas
With regard to regulation 6(1) we support the minimum requirements for information to designate a neighbourhood area

With regard to regulation 7(2) we also suggest that information on the boundaries of the proposed neighbourhood area should be publicised.

There is no time limit for a decision to be made by the local planning authority on agreeing a neighbourhood area. We suggest that an application be deemed to be accepted within four months of it being publicised unless specifically rejected by the local authority.

b) Designating neighbourhood forums
With regard to regulation 9 we support the minimum requirements for an organisation to apply to become a neighbourhood forum.

With regard to regulation 10 we don't think it is sufficient for a local authority to merely publicise an application for a neighbourhood forum on their website. We suggest that the same wording is used as under regulation 7(1)

There is no time limit for a decision to be made by the local planning authority on agreeing a neighbourhood forum. We suggest that an application be deemed to be accepted within four months of it being publicised unless specifically rejected by the local authority.

c) Community Right to Build organisations
With regard to regulation 13(b) we strongly endorse the fact that the constitution must provide that individuals who live in a particular area control at least 51% of its voting rights.

With regard to regulation 13(b) we suggest that, ‘benefit for the local community' should be amended to be the primary objective of the Community Right to Build organisation rather than, as stated, ‘one of its objectives'.

We strongly support the following provisions outlined in regulation 13(b):

iii. any assets of the community organisation cannot be sold or developed except in a manner which the trust's members consider benefits the local community;

iv. any profits from its activities will be used to benefit the local community (otherwise than by being paid directly to members);

v. in the event of the winding up of the community organisation or in any other circumstances where the community organisation ceases to exist, its assets must be transferred to another body corporate which has similar objectives;

d) Preparing the neighbourhood plan
With regard to regulation 16(2) we suggest that an additional provision be added with regard to the consultation document to avoid any ambiguity around the term ‘who were consulted' (under a). It is essential that the regulations require a statement of how many people have contributed to the proposals (including responding to consultation), rather than simply how many were given the opportunity to do so.

e) Preparing the Neighbourhood Development Order
With regard to regulation 21(b) we are concerned that the requirement that all qualifying bodies to consult the Historic Buildings and Monuments Commission for England could lead to undue pressure on that organisation and subsequent delays. In order to reduce bureaucracy we suggest that the local planning authority be required to determine at the point of designation of the neighbourhood, if there are potentially any heritage related issues that necessitate consulting with the Commission.

With regard to regulation 22(2) we suggest that an additional provision be added with regard to the consultation document to avoid any ambiguity around the term ‘who were consulted' (under a). It is essential that the regulations require a statement of how many people have contributed to the proposals (including responding to consultation), rather than simply how many were given the opportunity to do so.

f) Preparing the Community Right to Build order
With regard to regulation 21(b) we are concerned that the requirement that all qualifying bodies to consult the Historic Buildings and Monuments Commission for England could lead to undue pressure on that organisation and subsequent delays. In order to reduce bureaucracy we suggest that the local planning authority be required to determine at the point of designation of the neighbourhood, if there are potentially any heritage related issues that necessitate consulting with the Commission.

With regard to regulation 22(2) we suggest that an additional provision be added with regard to the consultation document to avoid any ambiguity around the term ‘who were consulted' (under a). It is essential that the regulations require a statement of how many people have contributed to the proposals (including responding to consultation), rather than simply how many were given the opportunity to do so.

g) Community Right to Build disapplication of enfranchisement
No comments

h) Independent examination
No comments

i) Referendum
If a neighbourhood plan is rejected by a referendum we suggest that there needs to be provision for dealing with this situation. As it stands currently it is not clear whether a neighbourhood in which a referendum is lost will remain without a plan or whether they will be able to go through the process again (hopefully with reduced costs), or have a facility for making amendments. There needs to be clarity around who will have decision making powers with regard to this.

j) Making the plan or order
No comments

k) Revoking or modifying the plan
With regard to regulation 31(c) we strongly endorse the list of organisations to be given written notification of the modification of a neighbourhood development order, a community right to build order and a neighbourhood development plan.

l) Parish councils deciding conditions
No comments

Question 2:
Our proposition is that where possible referendums should be combined with other elections that are within three months (before or after) of the date the referendum could be held. We would welcome your views on whether this should be a longer period, for example six months.

We feel that the period should be three months. A longer period could be a get out clause for a local authority to delay a referendum.

Question 3
The Bill is introducing a range of new community rights alongside neighbourhood planning. To help communities make the most of this opportunity, we are considering what support measures could be made available. We would welcome your views on what support could usefully be provided and what form that support should take.

Our national research around community rights and neighbourhood planning identified the following support needs:
• Practical written materials
• Access to one to one advice when you need it
• Hearing from other people who have put these sorts of rights into practice
• Support targeted in areas of deprivation or communities who have traditionally lacked power

Nick Bird, Urban Forum, January 2012