Organisation

Section of draft SCI the comments relate to

Issue Summary

NFDC Recommended Response

Copythorne Parish Council

General

Copythorne Parish Council are content with the statement as written, and confirm their agreement to it.

Welcomed.  No change required.

Cranborne Chase National Landscape (CCNL)

1.8; 2.15/16; Section 5; 6.22; Appendix 1, 1.2; Appendix 5

1.8: s.245 of LURA 2023 amended s.85 of CRoW Act 2000, from being a duty of regard, to being more pro-active and challenging.  Amend 1.8 to cover that statutory change.

2.15/16: mention that NFDC is an active partner in CCNL partnership, statutorily the NL Management Plan is the Council’s policy for management of the CCNL.

Section 5: CIL payments from developments in CCNL should be used on projects within and to the benefit of the CCNL.

6.22: consultees should be reconsulted on post-decision amendments as what may be non-material to one officer, may be material in the context of the National Landscape.

Appendix 1, para 1.2: Highways England is now known as National Highways.

Appendix 5: consultation should take place on certificates of lawfulness, prior notifications for agricultural buildings/changes of use. 

Agreed. Amend paragraph 1.8 accordingly.

Agreed. New Paragraph after 2.17 to reflect this.

Noted. NFDC will take account of CCNL needs in appraising CIL projects.

Noted. The criteria determining whether an amendment is deemed non-material is laid out in the Government’s Planning Policy Guidance. Material amendments are consulted upon. No change to SCI needed.

Agreed. Amend Appendix 1, paragraph 1.2 accordingly.

Certificates of lawfulness and prior approvals are decided based on compliance to The Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) (England) Order 2015.  If applications comply with the legislation, the council cannot refuse them. No change to SCI needed.

CPRE Hampshire

General; 2.2; 2.10; Table 3; 1.8

General: welcome the commitment in the introduction and reference to meaningful public consultation.  Do not feel draft provides means / opportunity for meaningful / effective participation at sufficiently early stage of plan-making process.

2.2: no explanation of meaning of ‘targeted consultations’.  Not in alignment with NPPF, para 16 (2.5) as community consultation should take place prior to the emerging options stage. 

Table 3/2.10: clarify who will be consulted on scope of Plan at early preparation stage and encourage/consider community input at this stage. 

Table 3: appears to be exclusive reliance on digital media consultation methods: should not be sole means of communication.  Consultation methods in para. 4.4 in respect of Neighbourhood Plans should be used by NFDC to engage local communities in preparation of Local Plans and Supplementary Planning Documents.

1.8: Should refer to enhanced duty in LURA 2023 to ‘seek to further’ purposes of National Park, rather than ‘having regard to’ (CRoW 2000)

Noted.

Agreed. Paragraph 2.2 and Tables 1 and 2 amended to explain the point at which targeted consultations are to take place and with who.

Agreed. Minor amendment to Table 3 clarify the scope of consultation.

Noted. Paragraph 4.4 in relation to Neighbourhood Plans only suggests the methods listed - it does not require them. No change to SCI required.

Agreed. Paragraph 1.8 to be amended accordingly.

Fordingbridge Town Council

General

Document is generic in format, content and commitments.

More consideration should be given to local factors, including how to engage hard-to-reach groups and those not traditionally involved. More commitment and consideration to innovative methods to achieve local ways of doing things. More should be said about bespoke consultation/ engagement with Parish/Town Councils, especially those most affected.

NFDC should commit to biannual Parish/Town Forum meetings for NFDC briefings, including local plan progress and legislation changes.

Noted. The SCI does not prevent the council from utilising further measures, over and above the minimum set out in the SCI. Different consultations may require different approaches and the SCI allows flexibility to explore those methods. Where it needs to go further NFDC will do so.

Noted.

Hampshire County Council

Appendix 1, 1.6; General

Appendix 1, 1.6: appreciate explicit inclusion of vulnerable and marginalised groups.  Suggest setting out engagement with low-income families as well.

General: greater efforts to engage with schools/universities to reach children/younger adults.

Include Hampshire County Council – Public Health as a consultee / stakeholder.

Replace NHS West Hampshire Clinical Commissioning Group with NHS Hampshire and the Isle of Wight Integrated Care Board.

Gunning principles are a measure of robust community engagement aims, and a legal consideration.

Noted. NFDC will seek to engage with all residents. Where it can identify methods to reach certain groups it will do so.

Agreed. These groups are listed in Appendix 1 (para 1.6). NFDC will consider how best to engage with younger demographics. No change required.

Agreed. It will be included under the existing ‘Other Government organisations not already listed in Type B’ category. No change required.

Agreed. Amendment to Appendix 1 entry to be made.

Noted.

The Lymington Society

General

The Lymington Society welcomes the Council’s commitment to meaningful public consultation and engaging with local people.  However, they feel that the operation of the planning system does not reflect the previous SCI, and the current SCI does not do enough to overcome the disadvantage the community is at in the planning system.

The Council should adhere to the Gunning Principles and fully respect the SCI when preparing Local Plans.  Proper timescales for consultation should be followed.  All sites included in the local plan proposal should be consulted on, with “conscientious consideration” given to all consultee responses before decisions are made.

There should be more transparency given to pre-application discussions at an early stage so the community can be fully involved in major/controversial developments.

Officers’ recommendation on planning issues raised in connection with a planning application should be posted much earlier in the process to allow the community to fully assess the Officers’ recommendation and respond accordingly (specific reference to committee).

NFDC should compile a list of Amenity Societies to be made statutory consultees for major/controversial planning applications, and those involving listed buildings.  These bodies should receive the weekly distribution list also sent to parishes.

The current three-minute time limit at Planning Committee should be removed for larger or controversial planning applications.

Noted. 

NFDC publishes preparation of plan and document timetables as required in its Local Development Scheme.

Noted. Early public engagement is encouraged by the NPPF and NFDC - but disclosures will be at the discretion of the applicant.
By default discussions will be withheld from the public domain owing to commercial sensitivity.

Noted. Beyond the remit of the SCI.

Weekly list is already available, and any individual can be added to the distribution list.

Noted. Not within remit of SCI.  No change required.

M.W.

Private Individual

General

Greater effort should be given to ensuring that all who may be affected receive letters about planning applications – e.g. roads which will be affected by off-site parking provision.

The Council should monitor businesses in residential areas.

Disabled people should receive letters, and not be reliant on site notices.

Ambulances/emergency vehicles should be consulted about their access routes.

Allowances should be made for properties to have extra living space in purpose-built, eco-friendly outbuildings to accommodate multigenerational living, esp. elderly parents/carers.

Site notices should be different colours depending on whether residential/commercial.

Site notices should be posted at each end of a road, if the whole road will be affected.

Noted.  This is at the discretion of the case officer.  No change needed. 

Noted. However, this is not within the remit of the SCI.

Noted. However, it is not feasible to identify those individuals who might wish to see such notices. NFDC already goes beyond the statutory requirements by writing to adjacent neighbours and posting a site notice.

Noted. This falls under the remit of Hampshire County Council (as the Highways Authority) or the Hampshire Fire Service, with whom NFDC consult on a case by case basis. No change needed. 

Noted. However, this is not within the remit of SCI.

Noted. No change is deemed necessary.

Noted.  This is at the discretion of the case officer. NFDC sends letters and a site notice, which is over and above the requirements. On major development a news release will often be sent out. No change is deemed necessary.

New Forest National Park Authority

General

Suggest using a mechanism such as New Forest Association of Local Councils (NFALC) to improve the communication links to town and parish councils.

Agreed. NFDC will reach out directly to NFALC.

Southern Water

General

No comments.

Noted.  No change required.

Transition Lymington

Appendix 3; General

Appendix 3: Transition Lymington wish to be listed under ‘Commuters’ and/or ‘Community groups and societies’ and receive targeted communications related to the SO41 postcode and cycling/cycling-related road (and associated) infrastructure. 

General: develop a single SPD focused on Active Travel – currently, mentions of which are scattered across SPDs 1-3.  This is likely to improve clarity, enhancing community group engagement, and ensure new development Transport Statements/Travel Plans are more evidence-based.

Noted. Transition Lymington will be consulted as part of the ‘Community groups and societies’ (Appendix 3).

Noted. However, this is not within the remit of the SCI. The Local Plan Review will appraise the policy approach for this. No change required.

Stephen Morris

General

Critical of the format of public consultation.

Planning system too complicated for the public to engage with.

Noted. Most of the planning processes and inherent requirements are set nationally. No change required.

Fawley Parish Council

Appendix 5, 1.1

Neighbour notification area should be made wider, including those on the other side of the road.  In the case of community assets, the wider community should also be notified.

Noted.  Site notice deemed to be sufficient. No change needed.