1

Mrs H. Berry, Planning Liaison Officer - Upper Severn Area

Organisation: Environment Agency

Supporting all of the SCI

Noted, support welcomed

2

Mr K. Harvey, Network Strategy - West Midlands Team

Organisation: Highways Agency

Supporting all of the SCI

Noted, support welcomed

3

Mr W. Mulvany

Agent: Peacock & Smith on behalf of WM Morrison Supermarkets plc

+ Other Representation

Request that Peacock & Smith are included within the LDF database on behalf of WM Morrison Supermarkets plc to be informed at future stages of document preparation/consultation. As an employer and operator of a significant retail facility in Shrewsbury, their client confirms that they would like to be kept informed and consulted on further stages of preparation documents which are to comprise the LDF. They particularly wish to be informed of any potential Area Action Plans which may be prepared for the Whitchurch Road area or Shrewsbury Town Centre, and any proposals for improved routes/new roads in the vicinity of their store and any SPDs. WM Morrison Supermarkets plc would welcome information on consultation stages via letters.

Appendix 3 Already includes a note regarding landowners /developers /agents, who will be included on the LDF database on request and thereby informed of all relevant stages of the plan-making process.

No amendment required.

4

Mrs J. M. Molyneux, Consultant to Regional Policy Manager - South West and Midlands

Organisation: Home Builders Federation

- Appendix 3 - List of Consultees for Local Development Documents - P.25-26

The Federation is pleased to note its inclusion within the list of consultees and asks that it continue to be notified and consulted on all changes to the LDF. The Federation requests that such notification be in writing, either by letter or e-mail as it is not possible to monitor changes to the local authority website on a daily basis.

Noted, see response to Mr W Mulvany (3).

5

Mr C. Hogarth, Conservation Officer -Northern Shropshire

Organisation: English Nature

Chapter 4 - Development Control - Para 4.4 - P.18

English Nature welcome the extended period of consultation afforded to their organisation where proposals affect Sites of Special Scientific Interest.

Noted, support for amendment to para 4.4 welcomed

6

Mr N. Rawlings, Planning Policy Advisor -

Skills & Sustainable Development

Organisation: Advantage West Midlands

Advantage West Midlands are pleased to see that they are identified as a statutory consultee for Local Development Documents in recognition of the Agency's comments on the Draft SCI, and as a consultee for planning applications.

Noted, support welcomed

7

Mr S. Martin

Organisation: Campaign to Protect Rural England (CPRE)

Chapter 2 - Target Groups - Para 2.22 - P.12

- Chapter 2 - Reporting Back - Para 2.26 - P.12-13

- Chapter 2 - Public Exhibitions - Para 2.27 - P.13

- Chapter 3 - Trees

- Chapter 3 - Hedgerow Removal Notices - Para 3.13 - P.17

- Chapter 4 - Development Control

Chapter 4 - Involving the Community When an Application Goes to the Development Control and Environmental Protection Committee - Para 4.17-4.18 - P.20-21

Supporting part of the SCI and Objecting to the Omission of a Policy or Supporting Text

- Chapter 2 - Target Groups - Para 2.25 - P.12

- Chapter 2 - Internal Communications - Para's 2.35-2.36 - P.14

- Chapter 3 - Trees in Conservation Areas - Para 3.7 P.15-16

Chapter 4 - Involving the Community During the Processing of a Planning Application - Para 4.13 - P.19 – 20

- Chapter 2 - Gathering the Information Base - Para 2.4 - P.8-9

- Chapter 2 - Involvement of Councillors - Para 2.20 - P.11

- Chapter 2 - Target Groups - Para 2.24 - P.12

Chapter 2 - Independent Examination - Para 2.8 - P.9-10

Chapter 4 - Involving the Community During the Processing of a Planning Application - Para 4.15 - P.20

CPRE note that in general, the arrangement for community involvement in the Borough Council's planning activities work well. The public is kept informed at all stages of planning policy and development control procedures.

CPRE welcome the range of groups to be consulted and particularly the inclusion of CPRE and the involvement of Parish Councils.

CPRE welcome the Council's desire to keep local groups involved in the planning process.

CPRE welcome the provision of public exhibitions.

CPRE are pleased that the Borough Council is conscious of the importance of trees in both urban and rural settings and applaud the various measures taken to ensure that they are protected.

CPRE welcome the arrangements for consultation on applications for hedgerow removal and the competence of Officers dealing with them.

CPRE congratulate Development Control Officers on the efficiency of the notification process to interested parties, and the willingness of officers to discuss planning matters with members of the public.

CPRE warmly applaud the arrangement whereby members of the public may address Cabinet for up to ten minutes before its meeting begins [please note that Cabinet is not referred to in this section of the SCI].

The value of the Development Services Liaison Group is emphasised as facilitating an amicable and constructive arena for the exchange of views on planning matters. CPRE would welcome a return to a six week timetable rather than the current quarterly schedule.

CPRE note the content of this section but point out that planning application files often do not include comments by other Borough Departments whose interests may be affected.

CPRE do not see why trees on Borough Council owned land in the Conservation Area should not be subject to the same consultation period as trees on privately owned land; it may accord with a regulation but still projects an unfortunate image of the Borough Council having "one rule for us and another for others".

CPRE suggest that environmental interests should be consulted where necessary during the processing of planning applications.

CPRE make reference to landscape survey work undertaken by the Borough Council and CPRE. The organisation consider that Development Control Officers seem to have no authenticated survey to refer to, when advising members, either official or unofficial, and comments in agenda papers appear to be subjective and based on personal opinion, therefore questioning the point of community involvement. CPRE recommend that the Borough Council's own Landscape Survey should be published and made available to all interested parties, including developers and landowners, well before the Core Strategy is finalised. The SCI should acknowledge this development.

A Forum of interested parties to discuss proposals for the Local Plan should include environmental interests. If the Local Plan Advisory Group is part of this procedure then the meetings should be open to the public and/or the minutes of their meetings be made available for public inspection for reasons of probity and public awareness.

The importance of encouraging Village Design Statements as a bottom-up assessment of local needs housing is noted, together with the time and effort devoted to preparing Parish Plans.

CPRE express a concern at an apparent neglect of Borough Officers to take account of the results of this public consultation on planning applications.

CPRE welcome the principle of round table discussion at an examination but stress the importance of inviting all interested parties to take part - not just builders and developers.

CPRE cite problems with the arrangements for notification of amended plans [please note the SCI refers to minor amendments] as an issue which is difficult to resolve. It should be made clear (and it usually is) if comments from an objector relate to an earlier application.

Support welcomed.

Support welcomed.

Support welcomed.

Support welcomed.

Support welcomed.

Support welcomed.

Support welcomed.

Support welcomed.

It is recommended that the cycle of meetings should be amended to run on the basis of once every two months rather than quarterly. However, a six week timetable would be too frequent in terms of both matters to discuss and demand on officer time.

Para 2.35-2.36 – where a development control application affects conservation, trees/landscapes or planning policy issues, relevant officers are requested to comment within 14 days and their responses are added to the file.

Para 3.7 – there is no intention to have "one rule for the Council and another for others". This issue has been the subject of considerable debate in recent years and the Council deemed that works to protected trees on its land should be dealt with via the exemption afforded by Regulation 10 of the Town and Country Planning (Trees) Regulations 1999

Para 4.13 -

By its very nature, planning concerns the environment and environmental issues and these considerations carry considerable weight in the decision making process on planning applications.

Appropriate environmental interests are, therefore, consulted where necessary.

Para 2.4 – the Landscape Survey involving Landscape Character Assessments is a key element of the evidence base and is identified in Appendix 2. This work is ongoing and will inform the production of the Core Strategy at submission stage. The studies which have been carried out are available to interested parties.

Para 2.20 – The purpose and remit of the Local Plan Advisory Group is clearly outlined in para 2.2 but the meetings are private and not open to the public in accordance with the Council's Constitution. Moreover, minutes of the meetings are not available for public inspection. As set out in paragraphs 2.4 – 2.8, these are various opportunities for the involvement of the public and stakeholders in the process of preparing Local Development Documents.

Para 2.24 – Noted.

The determination of individual planning applications is guided primarily by policies contained in the Development Plan, but responses from public consultations are always weighed in the balance in the decision making process. It should however be noted that the large majority of planning objections received on applications relate to non planning matters.

Para 2.8 – Noted

Para 4.15 – Noted.

See response to Peter Davies, Withington Parish Council (13)

8

Mr G. Stevenson, Planner

Agent: Barton Willmore on behalf of Taylor Woodrow Developments Limited

Chapter 2 - Reporting Back - Para's 2.26-2.27 - P.12

- Chapter 2 - Key Stages Section - Para's 2.10-2.11 - P.10

Welcome a clear distinction between community involvement in the plan making process and the development control system, and on what level each different group can be expected to be involved. They also welcome the linkages between the SCI and other key published and future documents produced by the Council.

Objection to test of soundness (viii). The document does not provide a clear indication that the results of community involvement will be appropriately fed into the preparation of DPDs and SPDs. Seek the inclusion of additional text providing sufficient comfort that all representations received will be fully considered in the preparation process.

Objection to (ix) test of soundness. Noted that the SCI sets out standards and arrangements on how the Council consults and reports back to those engaged in the process but does not have sufficient regard to the review procedure. At the very least it is considered that a timetable for the review of the document should be included.

Noted. Support welcomed.

Accepted that para 2.26 should be amended by including the following text:

'All representations received during each of the plan-making stages will be fully considered and amendments made where appropriate.'

It is not considered that there should be any amendment to paras 2.10 – 2.11, since the Local Development Scheme will always be the appropriate point of reference for document reviews arising from the Annual Monitoring Reports. This is clearly outlined in the relevant text.

No amendment recommended.

9

Ms M. Taylor, Senior Planning Manager - Sport England West Midlands

Organisation: Sport England

Appendix 3 -

List of Consultees for Local Development Documents - P.25-26 + Appendix 5 - Consultees for Planning Applications - P.28-29

Appendix 2 -Information Base - P.24

Other Representation

Sport England welcomes their inclusion as consultees on both planning policy documents and planning applications.

The undertaking of an Open Space, Sport and Recreation is noted and welcomed, the resultant strategy should provide a sound basis for planning policy in the LDF and decision making on planning applications.

SCI is not specific about the type of applications on which Sport England would be consulted. Clearly a statutory consultee for those applications affecting playing fields but would also like to be consulted on applications that: would cause the loss of sports facilities; propose the development of new sports facilities; for major housing and employment applications, would increase demand for community sports facilities and thereby provide the opportunity to generate investment into sport through planning contributions.

Sport England is monitoring their effectiveness in the planning system and, as an after decision service, it would be helpful if decision notices, where a consultation has taken place, could be automatically e-mailed to Sport England and, where conditions/S106 clauses are designed to overcome an objection from Sport England, that Sport England is party to drafting the conditions/clauses to ensure they meet Sport England's policy objectives and are sustainable.

Support welcomed.

Noted.

Appendix 5 clearly highlights on page 29 that consultees on any given application will vary depending on the location and nature of the planning application. It would be beyond the reasonable scope of the SCI to identify the types of applications that would be of relevance/interest to all of the 50 consultees listed. (See para 4.4 p.18).

Whilst the Borough Council is actively developing its e-planning functions, the request by Sport England is not feasible at the present time in terms of automatic electronic responses. Moreover, the drafting of conditions/clauses on relevant planning applications would need to involve all agencies not just Sport England and would undermine this authority's performance in meeting Government targets.

No amendment recommended.

10

Ms W. Bartlett

Individual

- Appendix 7 - What are the relevant issues in considering proposals? - P.33-34

Other Representation

Objection to (vi) test of soundness. Ms Bartlett states that developers/architects must not necessarily build/design to the highest building level within the relevant immediate neighbourhoods or to the capacity of the most densely confined housing within the vicinity.

Amendments requested:

- developers should submit more detailed plans and if approved should be adhered to;

- models should be submitted on large, expensive sites to assist the general public who cannot read plans and are misled by perspective drawings;

- developers continue to cover too large areas with brick, concrete, etc. within housing development when we are told nationally that flooding is partly caused by too much hardstanding immediately adjacent to buildings;

- plans showing computer textures to depict surfaces should be explained or preferably not used at all.

Ms Bartlett suggests that the Council could lead the way in sensitive planning, building, etc. where "small with space" is beautiful.

Most of the issues raised relate to detailed planning considerations and are relevant to the decision-making process. The level of detail required for applications is generally prescribed via the notes attached to planning application forms and where additional information/detail is required, this is requested of the applicant. The use of models is normally appropriate for very large schemes and have been requested by the Local Planning Authority, but this will always be the exception rather than the rule. Moreover, the use of computer generated images generally assists rather than hinders the interpretation of plans.

Noted.

11

Dr A. Shrank

Organisation: Town Centre Residents Association

Chapter 4 - Involving the Community When an Application Goes to the Development Control and Protection Committee - Para 4.17-4.18 - P.20-21

Other Representation

The document is clear, easy to read and describes the current manner of management of planning applications.

The Association is concerned that there is no mention of site visits undertaken by Councillors on the Development Control Committee to certain properties prior to their meetings. This measure gives, albeit a limited opportunity, for applicant and objector to ensure that the committee members see the problems and adds significantly to the confidence applicants and objectors have in the planning process.

An issue is raised relating to "minor alterations" to applications especially when there have been objections to the original application particularly by neighbours. The discretion allowed to officers to accept them without informing the original objectors may give rise to problems - two recent cases in the town centre are cited. A simple solution cannot be provided, other than to suggest that in each case where there are no objections or expressions of concern by one or more neighbours, the relevant planning officer should think seriously what would be the concerns of the neighbours to the "minor alteration".

It is accepted that there should be a reference to committee site visits in para 4.17. The following text is suggested:

"… and Councillors on the Committee undertake site visits to view major or contentious applications prior to their meetings in order to develop a greater understanding and awareness of the proposals."

The issue of 'minor' amendments to previously approved schemes is often a cause of concern, but as outlined in para 4.15, the current system is generally acceptable and often 'adds value' to the original approval.

12

Mrs J. Tetsill, Planning and Policy Officer

Organisation: Shropshire Hills Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty

Appendix 3 - List of Consultees for Local Development Documents - P.25-26

Objection to (iv) test of soundness. Request that the Shropshire Hills Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty (AONB) Partnership be included in the list of consultees for Local Development Documents. Reference is made to Section 85 of the Countryside and Rights of Way Act 2000 which states that "In exercising or performing any functions in relation to, or so as to affect land" in AONBs that local authorities "shall have regard" to their purposes. The Defra guidance note "Duties on Relevant Authorities to Have Regard to the Purposes of National Parks, AONBs and the Norfolk and Suffolk Broads" 2005 explains that "The duties apply to any decisions or activities an authority may take affecting land in these areas".

Accepted, the Shropshire Hills AONB Partnership should be added to Appendix 3.

13

Peter Davies

Organisation: Withington Parish Council

Objecting to part of the SCI - Chapter 4 - Involving the Community During the Processing of a Planning Application - Para's 4.14-4.15 - P.20

Objection to (iii) test of soundness. The Parish Council considers that until now the authority has seemed to encourage consultation and openness and that these paragraphs appear to be taking away some of this openness.

The Parish Council requests an amendment that anything referring to community involvement should not be curtailed at the discretion of a case officer. Concerned that a Parish Council is accountable to its parishioners and therefore the Borough Council should be accountable to the whole community.

Parish Council would like to see more commitment to Parish Plans as they highlight the fears, needs and aspirations of the residents in the village community.

It is not accepted that paras 4.14 – 4.15 are seeking to take away any 'openness' in the development control process. As noted in an earlier response to Bicton Parish Council at the draft SCI stage, the resource issues arising from consultation on minor amendments with all Parish Councils and the potential delays in processing applications could impact upon performance and hence is not practical.

It is accepted that Parish Plans are important, particularly as a consideration in preparing planning policies, for an area but they have no statutory weight in the decision making process and will rarely be applicable to individual planning applications. However, they can assist Parish Councils in making informed comments on applications.

No amendments recommended.

14

Brian Nelson, Vice Chairman

Organisation: Shrewsbury & Newport Canals Trust

- Appendix 3 - List of Consultees for Local Development Documents - P.25-26 Appendix 5 - Consultees for Planning Applications - P.28-29

Objection to (xi) test of soundness. Seek to include the Shrewsbury + Newport Canal Trust listed as a body which should be consulted in relation to local development matters and planning applications.

Accepted that the Shrewsbury and Newport Canals Trust should be added to the list of consultees in Appendix 3.

15

Mr P. Rouse

Agent: Savills on behalf of Shrewsbury Sixth Form College

- Introduction - Para 1.8 - P.6

- Chapter 2 - Preferred Options Report - Para 2.5 - P.9

- Chapter 2 - Submission Development Plan Documents - Para 2.7 - P.9

- Chapter 2 - Area Action Plans (AAP's) - Para 2.11 - P.10

- Chapter 2 - Supplementary Planning Documents (SPDs) - Para 2.13 - P.10

- Chapter 2 - How Planning Policy Links with the Community Strategy Process - Para 2.16 - P.11

- Chapter 2 - Target Groups - Para 2.22 - P.12

- Chapter 3 - Conservation - Para 3.2 - P.15

Chapter 4 - How Else Does the Borough Council Involve the Community - Para 4.23 - P.22

Objecting to (xi) test of soundness. The consultation mechanisms do not include: working in partnership with major stakeholders, where there are significant development projects involving stakeholders which have the potential to deliver significant benefits, or improvements to the standard of living of the borough residents in accordance with the Community Strategy Objectives. It is considered that this additional consultation mechanism should be included. An amendment to the paragraph is sought to include working with stakeholders in relation to major projects.

Objection to (xi) test of soundness. The SCI does not state that the Council will enter into dialogue with objectors when considering responses to consultation submissions. Although this will not be necessary in every case, there should be a positive commitment in the draft SCI for the Council to enter into dialogue with objectors wherever possible, to seek to resolve outstanding issues. An amendment is sought that the Council will undertake to meet with objectors and discuss outstanding issues in order that representations can be understood and objections eliminated wherever possible through the Council's consideration process before the Council's responses are finalised.

Objection to (xi) test of soundness. The draft SCI suggests that omission site information (which can be expected to include plan based information) will be made available through a variety of media, however, there is no mention of hard copy. All LDF documents should also be available as a hard copy rather than simply to view on line. This is particularly the case when plans are involved as it can be impossible to obtain an accurate impression of plan based information from viewing by electronic means. An amendment is sought that the text should confirm that hard copies of any plan based information will be made available for consultation and final documents.

Objection to (xi) test of soundness. The draft SCI does not provide any indication of when the Council will consider the need to prepare any Area Action Plans, or the criteria or decision making process to be employed in reaching a decision as to whether any are required. Clarification on this matter is required. An amendment is sought to include clear details of when the Council will consider whether to prepare any plans, and to provide details of the considerations and process which will be employed in determining whether to produce and Area Action Plans.

Objection to (xi) test of soundness. The draft SCI does not suggest that the Council will publish representations received to draft SPDs, or the Council's response to those representations. It is considered that this information should be published and made publicly available. An amendment is sought to the text to state that the Council will publish and make publicly available details of the representations received to draft SPDs and the Council's response and reasons for response to those representations.

Objection to (xi) test of soundness. The draft SCI states that the Community Strategy theme groups provide regular points of access with a range of key stakeholders who will be involved at each stage of the LDF preparation. The draft SCI does not identify those stakeholders, and it is considered that it should do so. An amendment to the test is sought to identify the key stakeholders referred to.

Objection to (xi) test of soundness. The key groupings listed for consultation does not include 'local institutions' including education. It is considered that educational institutions are a vital component of delivery of the community strategy, and therefore should be consulted as one of the target groups. An amendment to the text is sought to include local institutions (including educational) within the list of groups to be targeted for consultation.

Objection to (xi) test of soundness. The draft SCI states that the Council will advise a property owner if a building has been added to or removed from the statutory list. There is not, however, any undertaking by the Council to notify a property owner before a building is added to the list, or in response to a request made by any other party. It is considered that such an undertaking should be included within the SCI in order that the property owner has the opportunity to make appropriate representations in that regard. An amendment to the test is sought to state that the Council will notify property owners where a proposal is being made to add a building to the statutory list.

Objection to (xi) test of soundness. It is unclear from the draft SCI what the Development Liaison Services Group comprises, and what its remit is. This needs to be clarified. An amendment to the text is sought to explain what the group comprises in terms of membership and remit. The SCI should provide the opportunity, if appropriate, for other bodies to join the group.

Para 1.8 – Accepted, add to para 1.8 the following bullet point:

"Working in partnership with major stakeholders on the development of projects which help to deliver the aims of the Community Strategy".

Para 2.5 – Accepted. Add the following to para 2.5 :

"Where appropriate, the Borough Council will undertake to meet with objectors to discuss outstanding issues in order to clarify representations and where possible resolve objections."

Para 2.7 – Not accepted, it is considered that the media includes material in hard copy and is not exclusively deemed to be in an electronic format.

Para 2.11 – Accepted in part. Add the following to the second sentence of para 2.11:

"… and the need for their preparation will be reviewed as part of the consideration of the Annual Monitoring Report (AMR's) prepared by the Borough Council".

The considerations to be employed in the determination of Area Action Plans is adequately set out in paras 2.11.- 212 (as amended).

Para 2.13 – accepted. Add the following text to para 2.14:

"The Borough Council will publish and make publicly available details of all representations received on draft SPD's together with its response".

Para 2.16 – the list of key stakeholders would be different in relation to many differing topics within the theme groups and would therefore be an unacceptable level of detail for the SCI.

Para 2.22 – Accepted that "Local institutions" be added to para 2.22.

Para 3.2 – it is not normal practice to inform building owners that their property has been put forward for adding to the statutory list by either third parties or by the Council, as this could result in a building being demolished or altered prior to a decision on the listing being taken. Notwithstanding this, the Council does inform owners as a matter of courtesy where all parties are in favour of listing. Alternatively the Council could issue a Building Preservation Notice on a building which effectively provides a six month temporary listing prior to a final decision being taken by English Heritage although owners can claim compensation against the Council for any losses accrued. Consequently the spot listing approach is usually more appropriate.

Para 4.23 – Accepted the Development Services Liaison Group comprises representatives from the following, which could usefully be included in full in para 2.25:

West Mercia Police;

Shrewsbury Town Centre Residents' Association;

Shrewsbury Civic Society;

Shrewsbury Friends of the Earth;

CPRE;

Shrewsbury Access Group;

Shrewsbury and District Arts Association;

Shropshire Society of Architects;

Enterprise Shrewsbury;

Shrewsbury Business Chamber;

Shropshire Wildlife Trust.

Planning Portfolio Holder

16

Mr P. Rouse

Agent: Savills on behalf of Shrewsbury College of Arts & Technology

- Introduction - Para 1.8 - P.6

-Chapter 2 - Preferred Options Report - Para 2.5 - P.9

- Chapter 2 - Submission Development Plan Documents - Para 2.7 - P.9

- Chapter 2 - Area Action Plans (AAP's) - Para 2.11 - P.10

- Chapter 2 - Supplementary Planning Documents (SPDs) - Para 2.13 - P.10

- Chapter 2 - How Planning Policy Links with the Community Strategy Process - Para 2.16 - P.11

- Chapter 2 - Target Groups - Para 2.22 - P.12

- Chapter 3 - Conservation - Para 3.2 - P.15

Chapter 4 - How Else Does the Borough Council Involve the Community - Para 4.23 - P.22

Objecting to (xi) test of soundness. The consultation mechanisms do not include: working in partnership with major stakeholders, where there are significant development projects involving stakeholders which have the potential to deliver significant benefits, or improvements to the standard of living of the borough residents in accordance with the Community Strategy Objectives. It is considered that this additional consultation mechanism should be included. An amendment to the paragraph is sought to include working with stakeholders in relation to major projects.

Objection to (xi) test of soundness. The SCI does not state that the Council will enter into dialogue with objectors when considering responses to consultation submissions. Although this will not be necessary in every case, there should be a positive commitment in the draft SCI for the Council to enter into dialogue with objectors wherever possible, to seek to resolve outstanding issues. An amendment is sought that the Council will undertake to meet with objectors and discuss outstanding issues in order that representations can be understood and objections eliminated wherever possible through the Council's consideration process before the Council's responses are finalised.

Objection to (xi) test of soundness. The draft SCI suggests that omission site information (which can be expected to include plan based information) will be made available through a variety of media, however, there is no mention of hard copy. All LDF documents should also be available as a hard copy rather than simply to view on line. This is particularly the case when plans are involved as it can be impossible to obtain an accurate impression of plan based information from viewing by electronic means. An amendment is sought that the text should confirm that hard copies of any plan based information will be made available for consultation and final documents.

Objection to (xi) test of soundness. The draft SCI does not provide any indication of when the Council will consider the need to prepare any Area Action Plans, or the criteria or decision making process to be employed in reaching a decision as to whether any are required. Clarification on this matter is required. An amendment is sought to include clear details of when the Council will consider whether to prepare any plans, and to provide details of the considerations and process which will be employed in determining whether to produce and Area Action Plans.

Objection to (xi) test of soundness. The draft SCI does not suggest that the Council will publish representations received to draft SPDs, or the Council's response to those representations. It is considered that this information should be published and made publicly available. An amendment is sought to the text to state that the Council will publish and make publicly available details of the representations received to draft SPDs and the Council's response and reasons for response to those representations.

Objection to (xi) test of soundness. The draft SCI states that the Community Strategy theme groups provide regular points of access with a range of key stakeholders who will be involved at each stage of the LDF preparation. The draft SCI does not identify those stakeholders, and it is considered that it should do so. An amendment to the test is sought to identify the key stakeholders referred to.

Objection to (xi) test of soundness. The key groupings listed for consultation does not include 'local institutions' including education. It is considered that educational institutions are a vital component of delivery of the community strategy, and therefore should be consulted as one of the target groups. An amendment to the text is sought to include local institutions (including educational) within the list of groups to be targeted for consultation.

Objection to (xi) test of soundness. The draft SCI states that the Council will advise a property owner if a building has been added to or removed from the statutory list. There is not, however, any undertaking by the Council to notify a property owner before a building is added to the list, or in response to a request made by any other party. It is considered that such an undertaking should be included within the SCI in order that the property owner has the opportunity to make appropriate representations in that regard. An amendment to the test is sought to state that the Council will notify property owners where a proposal is being made to add a building to the statutory list.

Objection to (xi) test of soundness. It is unclear from the draft SCI what the Development Liaison Services Group comprises, and what its remit is. This needs to be clarified. An amendment to the text is sought to explain what the group comprises in terms of membership and remit. The SCI should provide the opportunity, if appropriate, for other bodies to join the group.

Para 1.8 – Accepted, add to para 1.8 the following bullet point:

"Working in partnership with major stakeholders on the development of projects which help to deliver the aims of the Community Strategy".

Para 2.5 – Accepted. Add the following to para 2.5 :

"Where appropriate, the Borough Council will undertake to meet with objectors to discuss outstanding issues in order to clarify representations and where possible resolve objections."

Para 2.7 – Not accepted, it is considered that the media includes material in hard copy and is not exclusively deemed to be in an electronic format.

Para 2.11 – Accepted in part. Add the following to the second sentence of para 2.11:

"… and the need for their preparation will be reviewed as part of the consideration of the Annual Monitoring Report (AMR's) prepared by the Borough Council".

The considerations to be employed in the determination of Area Action Plans is adequately set out in the last sentence of paras 2.11.- 2.12 (as amended).

Para 2.13 – Accepted. Add the following text to para 2.14:

"The Borough Council will publish and make publicly available details of all representations received on draft SPD's together with its response".

Para 2.16 – the list of key stakeholders would be different in relation to many differing topics within the theme groups and would therefore be an unacceptable level of detail for the SCI.

Para 2.22 – Accepted that "Local institutions" be added to para 2.22.

Para 3.2 – it is not normal practice to inform building owners that their property has been put forward for adding to the statutory list by either third parties or by the Council, as this could result in a building being demolished or altered prior to a decision on the listing being taken. Notwithstanding this, the Council does inform owners as a matter of courtesy where all parties are in favour of listing. Alternatively the Council could issue a Building Preservation Notice on a building which effectively provides a six month temporary listing prior to a final decision being taken by English Heritage although owners can claim compensation against the Council for any losses accrued. Consequently the spot listing approach is usually more appropriate.

No change recommended.

Para 4.23 – Accepted the Development Services Liaison Group comprises representatives from the following, which could usefully be included in full in para 2.25:

West Mercia Police;

Shrewsbury Town Centre Residents' Association;

Shrewsbury Civic Society;

Shrewsbury Friends of the Earth;

CPRE;

Shrewsbury Access Group;

Shrewsbury and District Arts Association;

Shropshire Society of Architects;

Enterprise Shrewsbury;

Shrewsbury Business Chamber;

Shropshire Wildlife Trust.

Planning Portfolio Holder