The Scottish Government

Name

Ruth Findlay

Job title

Planning Officer

Organisation

South Lanarkshire Council

Address

Montrose House, 154 Montrose Crescent, Hamilton, ML3 6LB

Telephone

01698 455943

Fax

01698 455948

Email

ruth.findlay@southlanarkshire.gov.uk

1

2

3

4

5

6

Development Plans Development Management Development on the Ground Community Involvement

4 Title of entry

South Lanarkshire Local Plan - Local Plan Inquiry

Professional knowledge Innovation Management Sustainable development

Partnership Community interest Regeneration Customer satisfaction

Before it can move toward adoption, the South Lanarkshire Local Plan (Finalised) has been required to be subject of a public local inquiry. South Lanarkshire Council ( SLC worked closely with the Scottish Government's Directorate for Planning and Environmental Appeals ( DPEA) in preparing for the inquiry and at the outset sought to e brace the Scottish Government's modernisation agenda for the planning system. The "project" brought a series of particular challenges requiring managerial, logistical and professional judgement and co-ordination. These challenges arose from the substantial interest in the local plan from a wide range of stakeholders, covering a geographical spread the length and breadth of the Council area and dealing with a diverse and complex range of issues covered by the local plan.

SLC's Planning Committee approved the Finalised version of the local plan in June 2006( It was placed on deposit between 3 August and 14 September 2006 at the end of which objections were received from some 10,000 objectors. Following a period of consideration the Council agreed to accommodate some of these objections. These proposed changes were advertised in March 2007 with a further deposit period for objections ending in May 2007. A further 280 objections were made to these changes. Following a pre-Inquiry meeting In June 2007 with objectors the Council was able to confirm the scale of the public inquiry - 1194 objections were dealt with by written submission whilst 146 were heard by the Reporters via a Hearing and 3 via a full inquiry session.

The Council, informed by the Scottish Government's proposals to modernise the planning system and public inquiries, set itself a number of goals for the project it sought: an open and transparent process; to increase certainty about procedures; to ad pt inquisitorial rather than adverserial inquiry sessions; easy access to information; accessible venues; timeous and consistent submissions; and a time and cost efficient process. As is explained further in the following paragraphs the Council views that all of these objectives have been met. A post inquiry survey of participants has been undertaken that confirms this view, as do the views expressed by'O nagh Gill of the DPEA and Neil Collar, Partner with Brodies LLP who advised the Council for the inquiry, their quotes form part of the supporting images.

The Local Plan has been under preparation since May 2004 with the Council's focus on th Local Plan Inquiry beginning as preparations for the objection (deposit) period for the "Finalised" Local Plan began. Discussions with the Directorate for Plan ing and Environmental Appeals started in June 2006 and continued until the form I Business Meeting for the public inquiry between the Council and Reporters in May 007.

The first Local Plan Inquiry Programme Officer was in post in September 2006, the second starting in October 2007. The Inquiry commenced on the 2 October 2007 and concluded on the 6 February 2008.

A locaI plan inquiry operates under rules that are designed to allow comprehensive and fair examination of objections to the plan. Key dates are set for the submission of documents and of statements of evidence. The inquiry requires to be timetabled accurately to make efficient use of time. To meet the challenges, described previously, and the objectives set for the inquiry, required early and comprehensive action. This encompassed: identifying, obtaining and mobilising appropriate human, financial, electronic and technical resources; undertaking project planning and critical path appraisal to identify key milestones and bottlenecks in the process; and tailoring the standard inquiry approach to meet the needs and expectations of objectors and the public. The modernisation of the planning agenda underpinned all of these actions.

Reporters - conduct LPI, consider each objection and offer recommendations as to whet er and how the Plan should be modified. Programme Officer - works for the Reporters, is the official point of contact for all objectors with regard to the arrangements for the Inquiry. Planning officers - prepare the Plan and consequently prepare a case in its support that forms the basis for discussion with objector at a LPI session. Planning managers - as per the planning officers and in addition co-ordinate and ensure consistency and quality of Council evidence and approach. Objectors - are given opportunity to present a case to support their objection to the Plan.

The focus on project planning, co-ordination, management of the process and promotion of Hearings rather than "Inquiry" sessions, reduced initial estimates of time for the inquiry from 36 weeks to the achieved 14 weeks. From a resources position this reduced time and less quasi legal form of the inquiry made significant savings for the Council. A streamlined process of information management was developed avoiding duplication of material; Committee reports translated into Statements of Evidence that in turn provided the basis for Reporters' reporting templates. All of these actions have assisted in the Council being issued with the Inquiry Report significantly sooner than initially expected, which in turn will lead to earlier adoption of the Plan, a key factor in the modernising planning agenda.

In short, due to both DPEA and SLC collaborating to find a more streamlined approach to the LPI process it would appear that the management and execution of this LPI has been a great success. It has been appropriately resourced, more focussed, more open, accessible and understandable to participants, has taken less time and information has been available easily. The streamlining of evidence has considerably reduced the expected issue date of the Inquiry Report from that originally anticipated. Whilst remaining totally independent, communication and co-operation between, SLC, objectors, Programme Officer and Reporters was exceptional. Following close of the Inquiry, SLC sought comment from all participants of the Inquiry via a survey, results are illustrated in the supplementary material submitted.

25 August 2008