This week's Councillor Column is written by David Kinniburgh, Argyll and Bute's policy lead on planning and regulatory services.

* * * * * * * * * * *

In March 2015 Argyll and Bute Council adopted its local development plan (LDP).

Divided into a written statement and proposal maps it is used to determine all planning applications within the council area, with the exception of the Loch Lomond and Trossachs National Park.

Under current legislation the LDP has to be replaced after five years, and as such, when the current plan was adopted, work started almost immediately on its replacement, Local Development Plan 2 (LDP 2).

In January 2016 the council approved their development plan scheme (DPS) which is updated annually and sets out the various stages in the process to adopt LDP 2.

Actions taken by the development policy team to date include setting up and updating the DPS, which remains on track, reviewing existing housing land supply, and undertaking a call for sites.

The next stage of the process is the first public consultation phase of the DPS, the main issues report (MIR) – which is also the first formal stage of producing LDP 2.

The MIR is a consultation document only and is not the council’s settled view, although it does set out a spatial and settlement strategy in order to stimulate discussion with key stakeholders.

It also provides details of potential development sites which have been submitted for consideration as a result of the 'call for sites' stage. together with an initial assessment of those sites.

It considers the challenges and major changes by asking a series of questions that will shape the next 20 years in terms of land use planning.

The information gathered will be analysed and used to inform the proposed LDP 2 and this is why it is so vital that interested parties participate in the MIR consultation which is running for an eight-week period from October 16 until December 8 2017.

Details of the consultation can be found at: www.argyll-bute.gov.uk/ldp2.

* Meanwhile, Councillor Richard Trail's column a couple of weeks ago made interesting reading.

His rant over the “unwillingness” of the administration group to engage with the opposition groups to reach consensus at a recent council meeting when considering the priorities of this council for the next five years, and the provost’s refusal to grant a request for an adjournment when considering the issue, had one vital piece of information missing.

That is that the council leader wrote to opposition group leaders in June inviting them to engage with the administration on the matter, and received no reply.