Official Report: Minutes of Evidence

The Chairperson (Ms Lo): I would like to welcome Angus Kerr, director of the planning policy division, and Irene Kennedy. Irene, what is your position? It says "grade 7", but I do not like to call people "grade 7".

Ms Irene Kennedy (Department of the Environment): That is my grade. I am a principal officer.

The Chairperson (Ms Lo): We will change it to principal officer.

Ms I Kennedy: Irene Kennedy is fine.

The Chairperson (Ms Lo): We also have Simon Kirk, planning manager in the strategic planning division; Brian Gorman from the Planning Service; and Joe Torney. Is Brian not here?

Mr Angus Kerr (Department of the Environment): He is. I am sure that he will be here in a second.

The Chairperson (Ms Lo): All your faces are familiar to us, and it is good to see you again. I am sure that you have been working hard in the last few months on local government and the strategic planning policy statement (SPPS). We will talk to you at a later date, Simon, about the SPPS.

We have your briefing paper. We are all quite concerned about the lack of time. You will have a big rush on to finish all of this by 1 April 2015. It is over to you to brief us.

Here is Brian now. Hello, Brian. It is nice to see you again.

Mr Brian Gorman (Department of the Environment): Thank you, Chair.

The Chairperson (Ms Lo): Angus, do you want to proceed?

Mr Kerr: Thanks for inviting us back, Chair. We are here today to brief you on the outcome of the Department's recent consultation on the planning reform subordinate legislation and to hear your views. We appreciate the size of the task and documents that you are faced with, but we are very keen that the Committee —

The Chairperson (Ms Lo): Will you speak up a little? This is a big room.

Mr Kerr: Yes. We appreciate that we have sent the Committee significant documentation recently. There is a lot of work in this, and I ask you to bear with us as we run through a little of the detail. This is a bit dry, as legislation often is. There has not been much time for members to get through all of the documentation, so we want to make sure that there is a broad understanding. We are very keen to hear your views and make sure that the Committee has the opportunity to scrutinise all of this properly.

You will all be aware that the responsibility for the majority of planning powers will transfer to the 11 councils on 1 April 2015, which is just five months away. The Planning Act 2011 was subject to Assembly scrutiny, and some members will remember going through it. This Act introduces the new two-tier planning system, with responsibility for the majority of planning functions transferring to the 11 new councils. In future, councils will be responsible for preparing plans, determining the vast majority of planning applications, except the reasonably significant ones, and all enforcement activity.

I appreciate that the reform and transfer of planning present significant challenges. The Department is consulting on the legislative proposals in two phases in order to manage the workload better and to show the connectedness of the many reforms. In May, we consulted on phase 1, which dealt with issues necessary to ensure that the new councils inherit a functioning planning system immediately following the transfer of planning functions from central to local government. These "day one essentials", as we call them, are the subject of today's discussions and should ensure that there are no interruptions to the management of applications, enforcement cases and development plan procedures already in the system. The work initiated by the Department can then be continued by the relevant councils through to conclusion.

Phase 1 covers development plans; statements of community involvement; the new three-tier hierarchy of development applications, namely local, major and regionally significant; the new and revised procedures for managing applications through the system; the management of applications relating to land of interested parties, such as council-owned land; and listed buildings.

The Department received 60 responses to the consultation. Among these were representations from a wide range of interest groups including businesses, environmental groups and, of course, councils, because this is critical to them. Overall, there was broad support for most of the provisions set out in the draft subordinate legislation, with 95% of the proposals receiving strong majority support, which was very encouraging for us. Details of the level of responses are set out in the annex to the synopsis that members have. While there was much strong support, the Department proposes to make a number of minor amendments. Those are set out in the annex as well, and we will run through them.

I will now take members through the key issues highlighted in the consultation, together with our responses to them, which will highlight some of the changes that we propose to make.

Development planning will transfer to councils, which will be required to prepare local development plans for their district. The draft planning regulations 2015 set out the procedural requirements for the preparation, examination, adoption, monitoring and review of local development plans, as well as the departmental oversight arrangements for those plans. The regulations provide a minimum set of mainly operational requirements to ensure a consistent, efficient, transparent and accountable operation of the local development plan system across the 11 councils. The aim has been to provide a light regulatory touch while ensuring that minimum standards and specific requirements in the preparation of local development plans are met by councils. It is important to highlight that the Department also intends to issue detailed guidance on the local development plan preparation process in advance of the transfer.

Overall, the majority of responses agreed with the local development plan regulations. Only two issues emerged that the Department believes require further amendment to the proposals. The first relates to the use of the press to advertise the key stages of the plan preparation process. The Department proposes that the council advertise the various planned stages for two successive weeks in at least one local newspaper circulating in the entire council district. Many of the responses stated that the councils would need to advertise in two or more local newspapers to ensure proper publicity throughout the council district and that the requirement to use at least one local newspaper was too limiting. Therefore, the Department intends to provide flexibility by amending the regulation to:

This will allow the council to use as few or as many local and regional newspapers as it considers necessary to ensure proper publicity/coverage of the local plan in its district.

The second issue development plan issue concerns the Department's oversight powers. Whilst 93% of respondents agreed with the Department's intervention and default powers and 97% agreed with the Department's power to direct joint working, it was suggested that it should be for the Department and not the council to publicise that the Department had used its oversight powers. The Department agrees and proposes to make this necessary amendment.

Each council must prepare a statement of community involvement setting out its policy and procedures for involving the local community in the council's local development plan functions and planning control functions. The term "community" is taken in the widest sense to include all those with an interest in development in an area. The statement of community involvement regulations are quite short, and these, too, are intended as a light touch. Overall, 93% of the responses agreed with the proposed form and content of the statement of community involvement to be prepared by the councils, and 60% agreed with the publicity, consultation and agreement requirement for the statement and discretionary consultation proposals. Most respondents who did not agree with the proposals expressed the view that the council's statement should be subject to a mandatory public consultation process.

Having considered the responses, the Department does not propose to make any changes to the statement of community involvement proposals at this stage. In response to calls that the statement of community involvement should be subject to mandatory public consultation process, the Department believes that it is appropriate and reasonable to allow a council to decide whether it consults the public on this matter. So, the discretion is with the council. The Department will issue guidance on statements of community involvement and, in accordance with section 2 of the 2011 Act, will publish its own statement of community involvement for retaining planning functions in the DOE within one year of the commencement of the 2011 Act.

I will now move on to the new hierarchy of development. The 2011 Act requires the Department to categorise development proposals as major or local. The 2015 planning regulations will establish a hierarchy of development based on a three-tier classification for development, which includes the local category but also subdivides the major category into major and regionally significant. This is intended to provide a framework for identifying and classifying developments so that they can be dealt with in the most appropriate way, prioritising applications with greater economic, social and environmental significance. The schedule to the planning regulations sets out five classes of regionally significant development and nine classes of major development, each with a description and the relevant threshold or criteria. Local developments are the remaining smaller-scale proposals.

No issues were raised with the hierarchy approach, but there were varying views on where the thresholds for each classification should be defined. Four main areas of concern were raised by respondents. First, it was suggested that the thresholds for regionally significant energy-generating developments, including wind farms and wind turbines, should be set below the proposed 30 MW. Representations from the renewable energy sector and the Utility Regulator recommended a lower threshold of 10 MW or even 5 MW. Secondly, it was recommended that all onshore works associated with regionally significant offshore electricity generating development also be considered as regionally significant. The third issue was that the thresholds for regionally significant electrical power lines require some amendment. The fourth issue was how cumulative issues will be taken into account, particularly if developers submit a series of applications just below the threshold for major or regionally significant development.

In setting the thresholds, the Department reached a judgement on the scale of applications that are major or regionally significant for Northern Ireland and compared this with practices elsewhere. In other jurisdictions, the threshold for equivalent regionally significant energy-generating development proposals, such as wind farms and so on, range from 50 MW to 100 MW. However, a threshold of 30 MW was judged to be appropriate for the Northern Ireland context. The Department considered carefully the representations from the renewable energy sector and is content that the proposed thresholds for electricity-generating stations — 5 MW for major and 30 MW for regionally significant — are appropriate and meaningful for Northern Ireland. Having considered the views of the industry on onshore works associated with offshore electricity-generating development, the Department accepts that all onshore works associated with regionally significant offshore electricity-generating development should also be considered regionally significant. The Department intends to make the necessary amendments to regulations to bring that into effect.

The Department carefully considered representations from Northern Ireland Electricity and the System Operator for Northern Ireland (SONI), which operate the high-voltage grid infrastructure in respect of the thresholds for electrical power lines. As a result, the Department proposes to amend the threshold for electrical power lines for a regionally significant development to:

Another issue raised by some respondents was the consideration of the cumulative impact of changes or extensions to existing developments. The Department considers that, in most cases, changes or extensions to major or regionally significant developments are unlikely to be of the scale of the original development. The legislation, therefore, clarifies that the scale of an extension or change alone will determine which classification it falls into. That follows a similar approach in Scotland. In the event that a change or extension to a major or local development, or a cumulative development generally, raises issues considered regionally significant, the Department, under section 29 of the 2011 Act, may call in the application for its own determination. Provision also exists in the 2011 Act for the Department to direct that a local development be dealt with as a major development by councils.

I move on to new and revised procedures for the management of applications through the system. No significant concerns were raised about the pre-application community consultation process, the schemes of delegation being introduced, predetermination hearings, or the power to make non-material changes to existing planning applications. A common theme in responses was the need for a consistent approach across councils and for procedural guidance to be in place, so the Department intends to issue guidance to cover those areas in the coming months. An issue was raised about the pre-application community consultation arrangements coming into force on 1 July 2015, as it might lead to a rush of applications. If the requirement for pre-application community consultation applied from 1 April 2015, it could delay applications ready for submission. The Department believes that any transitional date may encourage a rush of applications, but, overall, it is content that the proposal provides a balanced way forward that allows applicants a reasonable opportunity to meet the new requirements for pre-application community consultation.

I now move on to the Department's call-in powers. The Department has general powers already set out in the 2011 Act that do not need to rely on further subordinate legislation. I should make it clear that it is not the intention of the Department to interfere in a council's determination of planning applications and that those general call-in powers would be used only in exceptional circumstances, such as when an application raised novel issues that had potential impacts beyond a council area. That said, there are possible circumstances in which the Department may wish to be made aware through a notification direction of a council's intention to approve an application that could prejudice the implementation of the local area development plan or fail to address a significant issue raised by a statutory consultee or another Department. The consultation paper sought views on this approach. Most respondents agreed with those criteria for notification direction. Some commented that the approach undermines local decision-making. Others sought further guidance, and some suggested that further criteria be added to the list of notification requirements. The Department is confident that the role of local decision-making will not be undermined by these arrangements, which aim to provide checks and balances in the system. The Department does not wish to create a situation in which a significant volume of applications is routinely notified to the Department and, therefore, does not propose further criteria. The Department is developing good practice advice to support councils in the implementation of call-in procedures as well.

I now turn to publicity arrangements. The consultation set out proposals relating to the publicity for applications for planning permission, building largely on good practice in the current system. This reflects the Department's desire to maintain a steady state, as far as possible, to ensure continued service delivery and minimal scope for confusion or error across the point of transfer. As the publicity arrangements will be set out in subordinate rather than primary legislation, there is a greater flexibility for any future change on the basis of councils' experience in operating as the local planning authorities. A key proposal is maintaining the requirement to advertise all applications in at least one local newspaper. That received strong support. However, a number of respondents disagreed because of confusion about one newspaper not being sufficient. This is similar to the earlier issue of advertising for development plan documents. A number of responses highlighted the cost of advertising in what some viewed as an outdated and less efficient medium than other avenues open to councils, such as digital or online media. The Department recognises the potential for such approaches, but, at the point of transfer, it believes that the established process, which is well understood by the public and planning staff, will provide for the continued widespread publicity of applications. That will be supplemented by the Northern Ireland planning portal, to which councils will continue to have access after transfer. However, the Department accepts that councils may wish to go beyond the statutory minimum and explore alternative publicity channels, including new and emerging technologies, should they so wish.

In the proposals, the Department also addresses the issue raised previously at Committee that the current non-statutory neighbour notification process should be placed on a statutory basis. The proposal received strong support, with 84% of respondents agreeing. However, there was an equal split of 42 responses on the criteria to be applied for a neighbour notification. The criteria reflect current practice for occupied premises on adjoining land within a 90-metre radius of the boundary of the development site. A number of alternatives were proposed, such as using a radius of more or less than 90 metres, ranging from 5 metres to five eights of a mile, but there was no agreed alternative among the consultation responses. There also appeared to be confusion about how the current system operates. Some suggestions related to tailoring the process to particular types of development, such as wind turbines. The Department believes that placing the current operational system on a statutory basis will support a smooth transition to councils, ensuring clarity and consistency on the basis of a clearly defined minimum requirement. The Department believes that the proposals represent a sound basis for maintaining the generally accepted benefits of the neighbour notification processes.

The consultation documents set out proposed changes to the statutory consultation process in the management of applications for planning permission. These have five major elements: extending the list of statutory consultees to include the bodies that have historically dealt with the majority of consultation requests for planning applications; specifying the circumstances in which consultation is required; specifying a standard 21 calendar day period for providing substantive responses, unless an extension is agreed with the planning authority; setting out the criteria for what a substantive response is; and requiring each consultee to publish a report on their performance in meeting the duty to respond. All these proposals received strong support. Some concerns were raised about the role of the Northern Ireland Environment Agency (NIEA) and the level or detail of advice required in relation to the environment, habitats and vulnerable species. The Department recognises the importance of ensuring that the requirements provide an effective system that ensures that the necessary expert advice is provided in determining applications. To that end, operational guidance, supported by a service and standards framework from the Northern Ireland Environment Agency, will inform councils' decisions in seeking expert input to the development management process.

It should be recognised that the proposals represent a statutory minimum requirement for consultation and that, in practice, councils may want to go beyond that minimum on the basis of the particular circumstances of certain applications. A number of respondents provided alternatives to the standard 21 calendar day time frame, suggesting longer and shorter time frames. Others suggested that a holding reply should be considered as a substantive response. Some other suggestions focused on a more sanctions-based approach, including deemed acceptance if a response was late and the introduction of financial penalties. The Department believes that the proposals need to be seen together in the reform system and that they provide a sound framework for securing positive benefits in the planning process. These include improved response times, better quality of submissions and a reporting system that will provide the basis for identifying issues that need to be addressed in the process, as well as areas of good practice that can be shared across the system.

We now move on to design and access statements. The 2011 Act requires certain descriptions of applications for planning permission and all listed building consent applications to be accompanied by a design and access statement, which is, essentially, a communication tool to show that the objectives of good design and inclusive access have been considered from the outset of a development process. There was strong support for these proposals. However, a number of respondents highlighted the need for clarification of the categories of applications that would need to be accompanied by a design and access statement as well as clarification of the term "environmental sustainability". Several respondents sought amendments to the lists of which applications should and should not be subject to a design and access statement. Others sought additions to the sites defined as a designated area, including European-designated sites and areas of townscape and village character.

The Department has reviewed the definition of a designated area for the purposes of design and access statements. As the primary purpose of areas of special scientific interest (ASSIs) is to protect natural habitats or flora and fauna, it is not necessary, we believe, to apply the design and access statement requirements to such areas. Consequently, references to ASSIs have been removed from the designated area definition. The definition of designated area for the purpose of a design and access statement will therefore be proposed as a conservation area, an area of outstanding natural area or a world heritage site. To those, we are adding an area of townscape of village character, as suggested by some respondents. The Department will produce new guidance for the procedures involved in design and access statements, including the relationship with existing design policies and guidance, building on the experience from other jurisdictions.

We are near the end. The draft planning regulations provide that applications for planning permission by a council shall be dealt with by that council, unless the application is called in by the Department. To ensure that the Department is made aware of all relevant applications, it is proposed that a direction will issue requiring councils to notify the Department of applications in which the council is the applicant or has a financial or other interest, or where the council's proposed decision on the application is significantly contrary to the development plan for its district. This will afford the Department an opportunity to decide whether to exercise its call-in powers. The vast majority of responses to the consultation agreed with this approach, and the Department proposes to proceed with its implementation.

Finally, I move on to listed building regulations. These regulations set out the information and documents that applicants must submit to councils and the requirements for consultation, advertisement and determination of listed building consent applications. The proposal that councils should be required to consult the Department on all applications for listed building consent was strongly supported. In fact, 34 of 35 respondents agreed with that. The first of two issues raised was that the approach is likely to cause resource difficulties for NIEA and an unnecessary administrative burden on the Department and councils. The Department's view is that councils will require specialist advice to determine these applications, and it is proposed that this requirement be included in the regulations. The second issue was that the Department should be under a duty to respond to consultation requests in relation to the applications for listed building consent within 21 days, which is what applies to the consultation arrangements for ordinary planning applications, and the Department accepts this view and proposes to include an amendment in the regulations to this effect.

Chair, you will be glad to hear that that concludes our overview of the outcome of the phase 1 consultation arrangements. I am very grateful for your and members' patience in running through that, and we are very happy to take questions and discuss the proposals.

The Chairperson (Ms Lo): Thank you very much. There is a lot for us to take in. That consultation process seems to have been very effective and very productive. It is good to see so many people responding and adding their views. A lot of them asked for clarification, so I suppose that you still have a lot of work to do on guidance and clarification. I am pleased to hear that you are also making a lot of amendments and additions. It has taken a long time but been a very useful exercise.

The next phase has already gone out for the next raft of consultation. In general, I am bit concerned about the timescale for the second phase being so tight. Given all the comments received and the positive effect of phase 1, how do you feel about the timescale for the second phase?

Mr Kerr: You are quite right that the timescales are very tight and will be tight for phase 2. The approach that we have taken is that phase 1 was all the "day one essentials" needed to make sure that the system operates. Let us take an example: in phase 2, we have the proposals for fixed penalty notices, which are a new enforcement tool for councils. We believe that there is enough time to introduce that and all of phase 2 before 1 April. However, even in the worst case scenario, if that does not happen until a few weeks after the transfer, that is the kind of thing that will be affected. A council is unlikely to want to issue a fixed penalty notice on its first day.

The Chairperson (Ms Lo): You never know.

Mr Kerr: We aim to get them in on time. There is no doubt about that, but we have deliberately taken the approach that the phase that we are talking about today comprises the key "day one essentials" to make the system work.

The Chairperson (Ms Lo): You said that the local development plan has to be finished within a year. That is in the new Planning Act.

Mr Kerr: Yes, the local development plan is in the Act, and the regulations cover the procedures that apply to it, but the one-year timescale related to the Department's statement of community involvement. We have a year to get our statement of community involvement in place. There is no statutory timescale for the development plan process, but we have indicated that councils should aim broadly for a two-year process for the planned strategy, which is the first stage, and then another two years. We have said 40 months altogether for the local policies plan, and those two together make up the development plan. So, in about 40 months or four years, you can have a full development plan in place. You can have planned strategy coverage in two years. So, given the experience with the Belfast metropolitan area plan (BMAP), which I hate to mention, and other plans in the past, that is a significant step forward.

The Chairperson (Ms Lo): BMAP has taken 15 years.

Mr Kerr: Well, there were unique circumstances. The whole purpose of the new development plan system was to find a way around all that and how we have done plans in the past. You will remember the discussions on that when discussing the Bill. The two-stage approach and basing development plans on soundness to move away from all the site-specific objections and so on are all attempts to move them forward.

The Chairperson (Ms Lo): I know that all these things take time, but BMAP will almost be out of date when it is published, even if it is ever legally accepted.

I am thinking ahead to SPPS, and I think that Simon will come back to talk to us about that.

Mr Kerr: It will be me. You are getting a double dose of me, but Simon will be here as well.

The Chairperson (Ms Lo): You and Simon will come back. The SPPS is not ready and will take some time. How will that impact on the local development plan?

Mr Kerr: We aim to get the SPPS out by the end of the year, and we will talk about this in the next session. It will not come into effect until 1 April, so we have some wriggle room.

The Chairperson (Ms Lo): Not much.

Mr Kerr: Not much. I am conscious that the SPPS will require Executive agreement as well. We recognise that there are issues. We know that there is a broad scope of policy and that the Committee needs time to consider and contribute to that. We are certainly very open to that, but we believe that we have time to finalise it and get it agreed and out well in advance of 1 April. We have gone through the various stages on the SPPS and are at the last stage now. We have taken time to analyse all the responses. You will hear later about some of the changes that we want to make. We are very nearly there with it.

The Chairperson (Ms Lo): It is taking a long time, but it is a worthwhile exercise to hear from stakeholders.

Mr Kerr: Absolutely.

The Chairperson (Ms Lo): On behalf of the Committee, I want to stress that we do not want to see a raft of SL1s in March without the time for us to scrutinise them. We might want to bring you back to talk about this; there are so many changes that it is difficult for us to take it all in now. We might call you back on certain issues that the Committee is interested in and may want a bit more exchange on with you.

Mr Kerr: Absolutely. We are more than happy to do that, and I understand that entirely.

Mr Boylan: Go raibh maith agat, Angus. Thanks very much for your presentation. I suppose it is a long time since you started this process. I was hoping that I would not see you back again and that the process would run on through.

Major challenges lie ahead for councils, and we will get on to the SPPS in the next presentation. I am delighted with the neighbour notification, which we argued for. From part of your presentation, it seems to be that, no matter what we try to do, there will always be objection to it, and people are entitled to object and make representations. So, I think that it is vitally important that we get the statement of community involvement. You talked about publicity and papers and all of that. That is part of the process, to be honest, but I think that, if we are fair in trying to get this process right, the key to it is possibly the statement of community involvement.

I have taken a few notes on things that I am a bit concerned about in some of what you mentioned. Obviously, over the last number of years, a body of work has been done on the local development plans, so we may not be far away from that. Good luck to the local authorities in what are very challenging times, but there are opportunities in that. I want you to talk me through their aspirations as to what they will be able to achieve and what is expected of them. You talk about things of regional significance and what the Department will hold and what the councils will believe that they can do and can contribute. I suppose that, even though it is not on the physical side of things, community planning will be a major issue. That will be aspirational, and there will be a tie-in there. How is that process going at the minute and what engagement have you had with local authorities? These people are going to hit the ground running. A four-year period for maybe a new area plan for certain areas, if that is the timescale, is a short period of time, and I want you to talk over what discussions you have had with councils and what your reading from that is.

Mr Kerr: Thank you for those questions. You have highlighted the key issue, which is local development plans. We have been doing a huge amount of work in engaging with councils, particularly over recent months. You also referred to the preparatory work that we have already started on development plans. We wanted to try to get that work kicked off so that the idea is, when they take over on 1 April, they hit the ground running. We have particular staff already in place working on development plan issues with the new 11 chief executives and preparing some of the background research so that all of that is ready. That is one thing.

The other thing that we have been doing — and my team has been heavily involved in this recently — is our capacity building and training programme for councils. That has been a really interesting exercise, where we have really gone out now. Last night commenced phase 3 of that process. Phase 1 was an overview with the councils where we ran them through the Planning Act and the SPPS, but phase 2, which is now complete, was devoted to community planning; development planning, the regional development strategy and the impact that it has on the councils' work. It was actually done on a very practical basis with councillors. We had some feedback from the first session that councillors really wanted to get involved with an example of what you do in a development plan, for example, and how you handle particular issues or particular sites. That process received really positive feedback from the councillors who attended it.

The Chairperson (Ms Lo): How well was it attended?

Mr Kerr: It was attended very well. To be honest, we had to cancel one session because numbers were low, and that session was rescheduled into another one, but there were 80 to 100 councillors at some of the events. We were delighted with the attendance. Some discussions that I have had over the years with the local government sector indicate that it is, sometimes, difficult to get people to attend these events. My feeling is that councillors are keen to learn about the new process that they are taking on and the huge challenge that faces them. So, attendance was probably higher than it would normally be for these sorts of things.

The session that started last night dealt with development management, and practical issues around development management such as taking planning applications and seeing how they are assessed, and working through examples. The final session, which will start in December, will look at planning committees and how they operate, the code of conduct and the proprietary issues that councillors will face when they are making decisions. Added to that, each new super-council has received funding from the Department to do its own capacity building, training. I know that some councillors have gone over to visit local authorities in England, Scotland and Wales, and they have attended planning committees to see how they operate. Huge effort is being made at the moment to try to build capacity and train councils.

Mr Boylan: A key element for me is the expectation from the public on what councils are going to be able to achieve. I agree with all that you have said about capacity building, although I might have more questions on the SPPS. It might be the starting point on all of this. Are you talking to councils to ensure that the role of the councillor, specifically on planning, gets out to the public? I know what will happen: you will have a senior planner with a group of councillors; they will go through the processes; and then a recommendation will come, as it does now. The expectation out there is that your local councillor, who could be your next door neighbour, is going to get your daughter, son, or whatever relation it is, what they want. I do not want to get into the urban/rural situation, but I will mention it in a minute. Whose responsibility is it to get that message out? In December, when all of the training is finished, that message needs to get out on behalf of the councillors and the authority. The public needs to be told, "Here's what is happening. Here's how we are going to deal with it.". At the minute, there is an expectation in the public, and we all recognise that.

Mr Kerr: You are right. That is an issue that gets raised a lot. There are a couple of things. It comes back to the code of conduct and ensuring that councillors understand how to exercise their role properly in a fair, open and transparent manner. We have been doing work with them, and, as I said, further work is coming forward on that to make sure that they understand it. The interesting reaction that we are getting from councillors on that is that, for the most part, they are delighted that those rules exist, because they want to be able to say to their constituents, "Here is a set of rules that I have to live by. I can't just do whatever I want. If an application comes forward from a relative or friend, I should step out of the committee and declare an interest." That is important, and I am hopeful that that message is getting out in that way.

Associated with our programme to reform and transfer planning, and the wider RPA programme, is a huge communication strand of work that is constantly looking at putting out messages on all the issues to do with local government reform, be it rates, changes in planning, regeneration, and so on. Maybe we need to look at that issue.

Mr Boylan: I think that that is key in whatever we try to do, even in local development plans. We have a statement of community involvement, and you try to involve as many people as possible in early engagement to say what you are doing. At the end of the day, you should be communicating that message from the start. We have a unique opportunity. I do not know whether it is the responsibility of the council, because, if they come back, they may be looking for more money for that. That is for them to ask. I think communication is a key element.

Chair, I will finish on this point, because I have more questions on the SPPS. Clearly, whether we like it or not, there is an urban/rural issue in planning. I see it as being somewhat easier in the urban setting because when you develop your local area plans it is very easy to zone areas. Urban development is that wee bit more simple. There are still large swathes of rural areas with problems. You will find that, on most of the bigger rural councils, that is where the problems are going to lie for some councillors. How do you hope to balance that out? Has that come up in the discussion? I referred to PPS 21, but I do not want to get into it now because it ties in with the SPPS.

Mr Kerr: It will probably crop up more fully in our discussion later, as you said. In relation to the rules, regulations and procedures around the local development planning process, which are set out in these regulations, it is covered in a way because the development plan covers urban and rural scenarios. There is the facility in the plan to bring forward policies on protecting the rural environment and those directed by the SPPS to allow for development in rural areas, whether it is associated with dispersed rural communities, which can be designated plans, or to do with the extension of small rural settlements, which can be identified in a plan. As you said, the local development plan is the key tool by which a council can reconcile the issue between urban and rural. There is scope — and we will go into it later — for councils to do that as they see fit for their area.

The Chairperson (Ms Lo): Following on from Cathal's question about capacity-building. Councillors are being trained in all that, but what about the communities? I think that Community Places has been charged with doing some training in communities. How has that been going?

Mr Kerr: Every year, from the planning side, we give Community Places a grant to undertake work on behalf of the community in relation to planning. That has been there for years and is ongoing. It helps communities to engage with the planning process, and it continues to do that work.

The Chairperson (Ms Lo): Has it been given extra funding to do community capacity —

Mr Kerr: It has.

The Chairperson (Ms Lo): — particularly in relation to community involvement in local development plans?

Mr Kerr: It is actually in relation to community plans. It is specifically to do with community plans as opposed to local development plans, which will come forward in the future. However, there is nothing to preclude a council from commissioning work in the future from an organisation like Community Places to do work if it so wishes. The extra funding it has at the moment is to do with community planning and to make sure that there is correct community engagement around that process and so on, which, of course, feeds into the local development plan because it ought to be the spatial reflection of the community plan.

The Chairperson (Ms Lo): You said that a community involvement statement has to be out within a year. Is that right?

Mr Kerr: For the Department.

The Chairperson (Ms Lo): For the Department and then the councils. Will the councils publish their own individual community involvement statements as well?

Mr Kerr: Yes.

The Chairperson (Ms Lo): You said that, at the moment, having a mandatory public consultation process is not seen as being essential. Why not? Why should they not have that?

Mr Kerr: We thought a lot about that proposal. We looked at the other jurisdictions. When the idea of statements of community involvement came forward, the other jurisdictions were a little bit ahead of us. I think that England introduced it in the 2004 Act. Initially, it required statements of community involvement to be consulted on, but the experience of their use was that there was very little engagement around them. Basically, they were not —

The Chairperson (Ms Lo): It might be different in Northern Ireland.

Mr Kerr: It might be different in Northern Ireland. There is the potential for councils to do it if they want. In England, they found that people did not really want to engage about the policy for engagement; they wanted to engage about the plan. They wanted to say, "This is where we want housing. This is where we want transportation". The statement of community involvement is really a statement of the council's policy to involve people in all that.

The Chairperson (Ms Lo): That is very important.

Mr Kerr: It is critically important.

The Chairperson (Ms Lo): It lays the foundation for future involvement.

Mr Kerr: Yes. And I suppose we are not saying that they should not do that; it is just that we are not forcing them to do it. We are allowing them to do that if they want. They must —

The Chairperson (Ms Lo): If it is a good practice issue: do it.

Mr Kerr: Well, yes, although the practice is changing across the water, because they have learnt that they were not getting many responses on these, and the responses that they were getting involved people talking about the issues of the area that affected them, rather than what a cute statement of community involvement is about, which is the methods and modes of engagement, and whether there is online engagement, public meetings or whatever. I am not saying that there would be no interest in that, but the interest is much more focused on the actual issues covered by a plan or by —

The Chairperson (Ms Lo): They would probably copy what you have put forward as guidance, anyway.

Mr Kerr: That is right.

The Chairperson (Ms Lo): They would be fairly similar from one council area to the next.

Mr Kerr: Yes, although in the other jurisdictions some councils really take a much more proactive approach to engagement. They use all sorts of new technologies, while others are a bit more traditional and do things maybe not so proactively. So, there is scope for councils to take different approaches.

Mrs Overend: I have a couple of minor issues. Will you explain the difference between the "affected occupier" and the "identified occupier". You are changing from one to the other. What does it mean?

Mr Gorman: There is no practical change. We are changing it because some respondents believed that the phrase "affected occupier" gave the impression that people beyond the neighbour notification process were unaffected, and we did not want it to have that connotation because they are captured through broader methods of publicity and engagement. We did not want to give the impression that an occupier outside the neighbour notification process was not affected. That is all it was.

Mrs Overend: OK. That is fair enough.

The Chairperson (Ms Lo): But is it still the same distance?

Mr Gorman: They are the same criteria, yes.

Mrs Overend: Your next point is that you are changing the circumstances in which the Northern Ireland Environment Agency (NIEA) will be consulted. You said that those circumstances will be wider than they are currently. What about resources for the NIEA: will that change? Will you need to allocate more resources to the NIEA for that?

Mr Kerr: Essentially, the purpose of the statutory consultee approach is that what we are doing now is being put into legislation, if you like. We have been working closely with the NIEA to agree the circumstances in which it normally contributes to a planning application. We are also working with our own people about the applications on which they would normally consult the NIEA. Those are the circumstances within which the NIEA is consulted. So, it is not that there is, necessarily, a greater emphasis on the NIEA. We have been doing a lot of work with NIEA, which has been working recently to improve the way it consults on applications done by us, in DOE, to make sure that it understands the new requirements of what it will be like to consult on an application that is being handled by a council. That is different to the current circumstances. The NIEA is working on that; it is putting forward guidance and advice in relation to how it feels the system will work, how effective the system will be and so on. Hopefully, that should all work reasonably well and the resources will be in place.

Mrs Overend: You said that you are committed to reviewing the implementation of the Act. I was just wondering what procedures are in place to make sure that that review is carried out in a proper manner?

Mr Kerr: There is a requirement in the Act for a review. In fact, I think the Committee brought in an amendment to the effect that we should review the Act within three years. That will be one of the key pieces of work that we will undertake, once the transfer has been effected and all the work that we are doing at the moment —

Mr Boylan: It is 2014; the three years are up. [Laughter.]

Mr Kerr: — to try to get the transfer through. That is what we will be focusing on. In DOE, we call it the "retained planning function". Once the planners leave and go to the councils, some of the work we will be doing in planning at the centre will be as follows: look at how the Act is operating; work with councils to support them in undertaking this new function; introduce a performance management framework with councils so that we can assess how fast they are dealing with planning applications; look at how effectively they are dealing with them; see whether they are bringing forward plans as we would expect; see how enforcement is working, and so on.

So, all of that will be —

Mrs Overend: You are putting systems in place now that you can check later.

Mr Kerr: Absolutely.

The Chairperson (Ms Lo): Also, now there is a time limit for statutory consultees to come back to respond to planning applications.

Mr Kerr: Absolutely. That is 21 days.

The Chairperson (Ms Lo): Hopefully, that will speed things up a bit more. Quite often, it is the statutory consultees who are keeping things going slowly.

Mrs Cameron: Thank you for your presentation. I have a small point on the back of your question, Chair, about the consultation arrangements and consulting publicly on the statement of community involvement and the idea of it being mandatory. Angus, you mentioned some councils using more technology and so on. Will any encouragement be given to all councils to adopt that? As public representatives, we all know how difficult it is to get physical bodies to come out to any kind of consultation event. People generally do not want to do that any more. I think that we need to find new, innovative ways to seek responses and get the responses we need. It is dying off. An issue has to be very controversial to get people to come out to express their views. Does the Department have any plans to really encourage councils to move in new ways and directions?

Mr Kerr: I mentioned earlier the guidance that we will be preparing on statements of community involvement, and this will be one of the things that we will be encouraging through that. You cannot require councils to do it, but we are saying that that is best practice. The other issue is that we are always mindful that not everyone has access to some of the newer and online digital engagement systems and so on. So, you need to get the balance between that and —

Mrs Cameron: Yes, I do not mean moving away from traditional methods. I mean incorporating that and having something for everybody.

Mr Kerr: Absolutely. That is likely to be the approach that we will take in our guidance to encourage that.

Mrs Cameron: There are lots of people who do not buy or read papers. Statistics on the use of social media show that it is massively more used than physical paper now.

The Chairperson (Ms Lo): That is particularly the case with the younger generation. I still stick with newspapers, but I know that others do not.

Mr Boylan: I want to pass on my thanks to the planning staff. In all the time that I have dealt with planning, they have always been very professional. I am sure that, over the last number of years, it cannot have been easy for them facing the challenges coming ahead. It does not matter whether it is Newry and Armagh or any other area I have dealt with, I want to pass on my thanks to the staff and wish them well for the future. I will leave on this note, as I am not leaving planning just yet: we need to be very proactive in what we are trying to do here in getting the message out. That is the terminology that we need to look at. Thank you very much.

Mr Kerr: Thank you. I will pass that on. It is much appreciated.

The Chairperson (Ms Lo): OK. You have four and a half months to get all your guidance and SL1s coming, so please give us plenty of time. When you have your draft guidance, send it to us. We will be very interested to engage with you. Thank you very much.