What's Wrong with Parish Plans - Part 2
Surely no person can possibly object to quotations from a report commissioned by Defra. The report in question is
INTEGRATION OF PARISH PLANS INTO THE WIDER SYSTEMS OF LOCAL GOVERNMENT
which was researched by SQW Consulting and published in July 2007.
The section references from this 200 page report are given below.
2.3 "Parish plans [hereinafter PPs] were introduced in 2000 to enhance community participation in the planning process."
3.18 "Unfeasibility of mainstream service providers direct involvement with the preparation of all PPs was generally acknowledged. This being said, there still remained a need for them to have an input in the plans and an awareness of their development."
[NOTE. Mainstream providers cover education, health, transport, planning, police, environment, youth services etc].
3.22 ".. a PP will only be incorporated into planning documents if it is consistent with existing policy".
4.23 "It is difficult for local planning authorities to adopt holistic plans as they cover such a wide range of issues."
4.48 "At the moment there is no easy or systematic way with which to incorporate PPs into the mainstream process at timely and opportune moment ... Also, only about one third of communities have produced plans [as at July 2007].
4.53 "The planning system is characterized by national policy prescription .. . Communities often believe that PPs will give them a substantive voice, but national and regional policies and objectives, rather than PPs set the priorities of local authorities. The number of targets that local authorities are required to meet also divert time and resources away from working to integrate parish planning in the planning system."
4.54 "Furthermore, few PPs are 'fit for purpose'in that they do not conform to what is required under the rules applying to LDFs [Local Strategic Partnerships], for example, often not meeting sustainability criteria."
4.55 "In 2004, Supplementary Planning Documents [SPD] superseded Supplementary Planning Guidance [SPG]. In order to be adopted as an SPD, parish/community plans need to include a sustainability appraisal. Sustainability appraisals are proving to be both complex and expensive, and the requirement means that PPs are not "adoptable"without a significant commitment from parishes and/or mainstream providers."
OR, AS SUMMED UP IN THE INTRODUCTION OF THE REPORT:-
"A planning system which is characterized by a 'top-down approach'to policies and priorities, and the absence of any statutory responsibility to heed the demands of PPs, means PPs are not seen as significant documents in the planning system and therefore wield little influence."
"Case study consultees highlighted that there had been a lack of 'quality' guidance.. .[which has] led to the production of 'wish lists'and 'NIMBY statements' that meant that PPs had (and have) a poor reputation among professional planners."
With the example of the supposedly 'model'Haddenham PP discussed last month, and the critical DEFRA report quoted above, one wonders why our own ECDC councillors are so supportive of PPs.
Perhaps District Councillors Allen Alderson and Hazel Williams, together with Parish Councillors John Jordan, David Almond and Peter Hart will say why none of the above was mentioned at the presentation at the Annual Village Assembly. It is very much to be hoped that they will make a comment in next month's Crier.