Hi all, we are testing this new system to see if it works for online discussions. Lets see how it goes.
I have attached a current version of the evaluation checklist. Liz has already made quite a few updates, though we have not swapped the versions as we have to wait until everyone has shut their version to swap it.
I would love if you could send through any comments or examples of what you would like to see in the checklist through this forum. If it does not works, then we will set up more working groups (we will still have a face to face anyway, but we can start collecting ideas and concerns first here).

Thanks and talk soon

Boheme

Hi Bo
i'm thinking we should review all of the evaluation documents as they form the basis for the whole process. I generally complete the checklist at the end of the process as a means to double check my evaluation and make sure I haven't missed anything . As you've noticed the BG team have been using a revised Changes Required form that specifies the parts of the Act, Regulations, Approved form or Guidelines. This way everyone knows what and why something is refusable and use a Summary of Comments PDF (borrowed from the Metro team) to supplement that providing more detail on the refusable issues and more editorial direction for minor matters.

I like this approach of referencing the Act and Regulations to make it clear on what basis the plan is being refused. I think that this is important on the recent advice of the OGC that the 'stop-the-clock' mechanism can only be used in relation to the relevant provisions of the Act (eg. s.53 or s.61). In light of this advice, my view is that where there are no matters relating to either s.53 or s.61 we cannot use this mechanism for additional changes required (eg. typos or phrases that we don't like). Similarly, in previous discussions (with Harry in particular he has made it clear) we cannot refuse a plan on the basis that it is not in the approved form, thus limiting even further the grounds on which we must refuse a plan to those set out in s.53 and Schedule 2 of the Regulations. I think that this referencing of the Act and Regulations is a useful way of demonstrating the decision making process should it be subject to challenge at any stage.

Hi Matthew, yeah I have notice the changes you guys have made on the changes required form. I think its great and other teams are more than welcome to use your format, as we the regular changes required form is pretty basic - though it was originally made to be that way.
The changes required form was made pretty basically as when we first started asking for changes HATs would get comments from evaluators in different forms (email, words doc, pdf etc- and nothing was consistent), which is why we made the form so that all changes evaluators required would in saved in one form that was easy to find in the T drive folder.
If all those details assist you thats great, but just make sure you are not creating yourself a second evaluation checklist - and creating more work for yourself and you team - remember Harry does not see the changes required form.

I should mention the changes required form was created by HATS (Harry never really had a say in it or I think has really ever seen it). The form just made our jobs easier and I hope it made the elevators job easier too.

I think even though Harry doesn't see the form that its important that we convey to the Sponsor the basis on which we are requesting changes to the CHMP and that we clearly reference these to the relevant parts of the Act. This demonstrates clear and transparent decision making by the Secretary, which is an important principle of good public administration.

Perhaps it would be useful to combine the "Changes Required" document as a part of the Checklist? If it's web-based it could be dynamic (?)

I find that statement from Harry disturbing:
"r.68 Content of a cultural heritage management plan
For the purposes of section 53(1) of the Act, a
cultural heritage management plan must—
(a) unless otherwise approved by the
Secretary, be in the approved form"

I agree - as that's also my interpretation of r.68 - but I've been told that I'm unable to refuse something if its not in the approved form