Dear people,

We are being asked to respond to the latest draft Statement of Community
Involvement.

I have already made my contribution to these attached documents, and am
happy with them. Unless anyone raises any queries or objections in the
next couple of days, I will reply that the SM&CDCP are content to put
our name to them.

Paul.


-------- Original Message --------
Subject: Bristol Draft SCI: Community response
Date: Tue, 7 Aug 2007 07:54:58 +0100
From: David Farnsworth <davidfarnsworth@...>
To:



*From:* Bristol Neighbourhood Planning Network Steering Group: David
Farnsworth (Civic Society); Alison Bromilow (Redland & Cotham); Andy
King (Christmas Steps); Steve Pearce (Brislington); Audrey Lennox
(Westbury on Trym).

*To:* Dear Bristol Neighbourhood Planning Network Member,

You will know that the City Council has published a new Draft SCI for
"consultation" with the public. The original Draft was rejected by the
Planning Inspectorate in August 2006.

You will also know, and may have yourself been involved in three
"workshop" type meetings between reps of neighbourhood planning groups
and other organisations and City Council officers in the 16th February,
8th March and 15th March, designed to involve the community in the
redrafting of the SCI from the word go - in contrast from the first time
around when there was no "frontloaded" community involvement in drafting.

Comments from the public are requested by 17th August 2007. As a result
of the three workshop meetings and several other discussions between the
Network Steering Group - particularly on the question of Ground Rules -
the Steering Group has produced a proposed response to the City Council.

Please find attached in two files :
1. an overall assessment plus
2. a section by section analysis of the new Draft and how far it meets
community concerns from both the original Examination in Public and the
latest workshop meetings.

As the Network Steering Group we propose to send this response in our
names, but we would like to know how far we reflect the wider view of
groups throughout the Network.

*Please would you look at our proposed response and say whether, on
behalf of your group, you:*
**
(a) support it generally as something that can be sent in the name of
the Network, including your own group?

(b) propose to send a separate response on behalf of your own group? By
all means cherry pick our analysis as you wish.
**

Thank you.