Response 821929884

Back to Response listing

Introduction

Are you responding as an individual or an organisation?

Please select one item
(Required)
Individual
Organisation

The Scottish Government would like your permission to publish your consultation response. Please indicate your publishing preference:

Please select one item
(Required)
Publish response with name
Publish response only (anonymous)
Do not publish response

Page One

1. The guidance identifies a series of principles for effective community planning. Do you agree with them? Should there be any others?

Please explain why:
The principles seem sound and take on the overall context of social sustainability in being inclusive. Working with local communities in the only way to know what and how to plan outcomes locally. Local knowledge is one of the most valuable resources when carrying out planning exercises affecting a specific location. A diverse group is essential for taking part in these activities in order to understand the many effects and impacts on everyone affected and to pool expertise and knowledge. Planning for continuous improvement is essential and a local plan needs to be a flexible working document with any possible shock or risk factors built in. Potential solutions to these factors are important to discuss and note, again keeping a close eye on whether these factors could change. Working on the precautionary principle and attempting to prevent issues before they arise or have an adverse effect, is one of the most important aspects of any plan, and that this is becoming statutory places some real foundation in recognising its critical importance.

2. The draft guidance sets out common long-term performance expectations for all CPPs and community planning partners. Each CPP will adopt its own approach towards meeting these expectations, reflecting local conditions and priorities. Even so, do you think there are common short- or medium-term performance expectations which every CPP and partner should be expected to meet? If so, what are they?

Please explain why:
Short and medium term performance expectations may be appropriate in some respects but not in others. Furthermore, there is little value in having the performance expectations in place unless they are to be monitored and accounted for. Resources may be too thin on the ground to extend to such luxuries, therefore priorities and balances need to be the focus.

3. The 2015 Act requires CPPs to keep under review the question of whether it is making progress in the achievement of each local outcome in their LOIP and locality plan(s). CPPs must from time to time review their LOIP and locality plan(s) under review, and to revise them where appropriate. Even with this, do you think the statutory guidance should require CPPs to review and if necessary revise their plans after a specific period of time in every case?

Please select one item
Yes
No
Please explain why
See part of response to Q1. The plan should be a flexible working document, with provision for revision built in, in order to keep it as sensible and as relevant as possible.

4. What should the statutory guidance state as the latest date by which CPPs must publish progress reports on their local outcomes improvement plans and locality plans?

Please select one item
4 months
6 months
Other

6. We propose that the draft regulation for locality planning should set one criterion only, which is a maximum population permissible for a locality. Do you agree?

Please select one item
Yes
No
What are your reasons?
More isolated locations with very small populations must also be considered - as sub-groups possibly?? Smaller populations often reside in some of the most fragile communities, most sensitive to impacts.

9. Are there any equality issues we should be aware of in respect of local outcomes improvement plans and locality plans?

Consideration of isolated coastal and island communities and their specific needs, and what impacts on them most - both positive and negative.