When is a scenario not a scenario? When its actually an Option! Residents and officers alike were left confused by the statements by Conservative Councillors about the consultation on the forthcoming Local Plan. The Council produced four scenarios (which essentially had only two options) but insisted that no strategic decisions had been made and that the consultation might turn up a different scenario:
Cllr Donal O’Neill said:
“These scenarios represent a spectrum. We’re not sure if any of these are going to be right or if we have to move forward and develop some final scenario, which maybe has the strengths of some or all of them”.
Leader Robert Knowles:
“They are scenarios, not options. Its may be none of these are suitable that is a possibility. No decisions are being made. On Page 38 you can tick which option – there I’m saying Option now, I mean which scenario you like. There is one that says ‘another’, so we need to take that into account”
Unfortunately the Council doesn’t have time to do this! It literally must decide the scenario to take forward to the Inspector by November. In its rush (I know this is a race against time!) it has missed out a consultation stage. In Guildford they are currently consulting on their Preferred Option through a ‘draft plan consultation’ AFTER consulting on its Issues & Options, which is then followed by the pre-submission consultation to test the soundness of the plan)
The Waverley Local Plan timetable earlier this year set out:
July/Aug 2014: “Consultation on the alternative approaches to delivering new housing Including identifying potential sites. Would also include consultation on any other options/alternatives that emerge as well as the draft Vision and Objectives of the new Local Plan”
And even before that in 2011 and 2012 there were at least two consultation stages:
Unfortunately there doesn’t look to be a consultation on the outcome, as this sneakily amended new timetable sets out:
The consulation documents are key parts of the Test of Soundness (how the Plan accords with the NPPF), and I would say Waverley are going to get into hot water here for not consulting on a draft Plan before submission. This “You tell us, we’re just guessing” approach is not going to help anyone.
Indeed Stefan Reynold’s letter to the Surrey Ad, although a swipe at UKIP hypocrisy, raises the issue that Waverley are still negotiating DOWN the housing numbers. Shouldn’t the consultation wait until this has happened?!! (We know its not going to happen, but the public will be expecting some answers, perhaps before making an informed decision)
Lets assume that a fifth scenario, a hybrid scenario, emerges as the most popular from this consultation. That becomes the Council’s Preferred Option. Because that is a NEW scenario, and a NEW option, it will need to be tested for sustainability by the officers, which may take several months of engaging with Highways, Environment Agency etc. It will then have to go out to general public consultation. It cannot be the same consultation as the test of soundness, as that test also tests that this option has been fully consulted on!
This is a failure of leadership – don’t promise people a consultation that can’t actually deliver. If Robert Knowles is to hit his timetable – he needs to lead on these Options properly. People – these ARE the options, Waverley don’t have time for anything else!