Missing out the Preferred Options stage

We did not plan a formal PO stage but realised to jump from Options to Submission was too sudden. We replaced a formal Preferred Options consultation with a direction of travel or "Towards a Final Draft" report. This set out our evidence and public involvement response and outline a series of potential strategies. Not fully worked up statements but enough to inform the community of the direction of travel and be a basis for dialogue with infrastructure providers. Also only approved by a Member Task Panel - not a formal Council statement at this stage.

We initially were going along a similar route, but after visits and discussions with both PINS and PAS, it was felt that this was too large a jump and so we have recently agreed a new LDS that now incorporates a 'Pre Publication Draft' stage, to allow extra input from stakeholders and more importantly the public.

We have done a Preferred Options stage and in fact are about to do a second due to various changes! We might call it something different, but it is essentially a PO.

Salford are out to consultation currently on a Draft Core Strategy following earlier consultation on an Issues and Options report. Essentially a PO document but probably clearer for being a draft.

Whatever it is called, I think you will need a draft document on which to engage the public.

For our core Strategy under the old PPS 12 we had a Preferred Options stage. The policies were fully detailed and a lot of background info was attached to the consultation document. The Core Strategy was agreed and adopted in April 2009. This time, under new PPS 12 we are having consultation on a "pre-submission draft." this followed an on-going Issues consultation (there weren't a lot of options due to the London Plan and our own Core Strategy.Again the policies will be fully detailed and a lot of background info attached to the consultation document. The text will have been agreed by a 2 party memebers panel and also by Scrutiny, Cabinet and Full Council. Time will tell if this is the right way to do it - it seemed to make sense to us! Good luck!

The advice we got from our PINS visiting inspector was that if we went from Issues & Options straight to a pre-submission document there "shouldn't be any surprises" in it. As we are doing a joint Core Strategy with a neighbouring authority and their housing allocation was doubled by the proposed amendments to the RSS after the I&O stage it was fair to say there would have been some surprises. We are therefore going out for consultation on a pre-publication version. My instinct is that a fixed consultation period is probably even more important at the end of the process than the beginning. Build the consensus using something approaching continuous engagement, including targeted consultation, but be wary of not having a formal consultation on the PO stage.

At one of the meetings which our GO kindly arranged with the GO and PINS, each with small groups of LPAs, the then Deputy Chief Executive of PINS said that major DPDs, like Core Strategies, should have a Preferred Options stage.
The view was that flexibility in consultation stages introduced following the Govt.'s Streamlining LDF proposals could apply to less contentious/minor DPDs, not the Core Strategy.
We anticipate including an Indication of Preferred Options in our Issues and Options consultation where we can, so that if we come up with a number of reasonable options the public would have an indication of which ones Members feel inclined to go for.
We plan to 'front-load' sufficiently so that the Preferred Options stage comes soon after the Issues and Options stage (barring mishaps and bolts form the blue) so that the public have a chance of remembering the previous consultation when they see the Preferred Options one.