June 14th, 2011 |
This is IMPORTANT! A New Consultation On Future Development.
This is IMPORTANT!
The District Council is carrying out a new consultation on its core strategy for development. They’ve sent out a letter. We show the full letter below, though if you aren’t an expert on this stuff, you might find it hard to grasp the full meaning.
This is after a recent High Court case involving Forest Heath Sistrict Council in Suffolk. The District Council now has to do more than simply have a set of proposals. It has to show that it’s properly looked at all the alternatives as well. So it’s produced a document called the Sustainability Appraisal Addendum (“SA Addendum”). This tries to show its looked at the alternatives. You can download it downloaded here. (299k)
Comments may be submitted via email to planning.policy@rochford.gov.uk or in writing to: Planning Policy, Rochford District Council, Council Offices, South Street, Rochford, Essex, SS4 1BW. Please note that comments can only be made in respect of this “SA Addendum”. The consultation period will last until 5:00 pm on 11th July 2011.
There doesn’t seem to be a way of submitting comments online, so that other people can see them. Though if people want to copy their responses here as a comment, please feel free.
We are still studying the document ourselves and will probably write some more on onlinefocus later.
Sustainability Appraisal of Core Strategy Submission Document
Date: 13 June 2011
Dear Sir/Madam
I am writing to advise you that we are now seeking views on the Sustainability Appraisal Addendum of the Core Strategy Submission Document.
The Council submitted the Rochford District Core Strategy to the Secretary of State in January 2010. Since that time the document has been under examination by the Planning Inspectorate to determine whether it is sound and legally compliant. Part of the evidence base for the Core Strategy includes the Sustainability Appraisal, which considers the social, economic and environmental effects of a plan.
.
During the course of the examination, the change in government and subsequent changes in national policy have resulted in delays into the determination of the Core Strategy’s soundness.
In light of the recent High Court Ruling Save Historic Newmarket v. Forest Heath District Council, Rochford District Council requested that the issuing of a decision on the soundness of the Core Strategy be delayed to enable the Council undertake a review of the Core Strategy Sustainability Appraisal. The Planning Inspectorate accepted this request.
The Council has produced a review of the Core Strategy Sustainability Appraisal (Sustainability Appraisal Addendum) and is now consulting on this document. We now invite you to comment on this. The formal consultation period will run from 13 June 2011 until 5pm on 11 July 2011.
.
We recommend that also visit www.rochford.gov.uk to view the document and access background information.
We recognise that not everyone has access to the Internet and that it is important that no one is excluded from participating. If you wish to submit your views but are unable to do so online, please contact the Planning Policy team on .Paper copies of the document can be viewed at the following locations:
• Rochford Council Offices, South Street, Rochford, SS4 1BW
• Rayleigh Civic Suite, 2 Hockley Road, Rayleigh, SS6 8EB
• Great Wakering Library, 16 High Street, Great Wakering, SS3 0EQ
• Hockley Library, Southend Road, Hockley, SS5 4PZ
• Hullbridge Library, Ferry Road, Hullbridge, SS5 6ET
• Rayleigh Library, 132/134 High Street, Rayleigh, SS6 7BX
• Rochford Library, Roche Close, Rochford SS4 1PSComments may be emailed to: planning.policy@rochford.gov.uk or alternatively, submitted to:
Planning Policy
Council Offices
South Street
Rochford
Essex
SS4 1BWComments submitted will be used to inform the final version of the Sustainability Appraisal Addendum, which will be submitted to the Planning Inspectorate.
Ron Oatham
Trevor Parrett
Bruce Smart
Chris Stanley
Pam Waldie
Elena Black
Rochford District Council carries out grass cutting on behalf of the County Council.
If you see a grass verge that badly needs cutting, you can report it
This is the official master document for planning policy in our district! To download it, click here
June 15th, 2011 at 12:06
The council still haven’t completed the DPD Allocations consultation they undertook in April 2010, ignoring a rejection rate of 93.7%. The Core Strategy process is clearly not transparent. How can the public be expected to have any confidence in any consultation?
Cllr Michael Hoy has just published a condemnation of this and Cllr John Mason has also frequently commented. What is the Libdem position on this?
June 15th, 2011 at 03:06
Apologies if I’ve completely missed it but who do they send the letters out to ?
June 16th, 2011 at 06:06
We would like to see all the responses to all the LDF consultations published online.
June 16th, 2011 at 07:06
Admin
I asked Shaun Scrutton this question about online publishing.
“Noting that you have chosen to not use the online system in this instance could I ask you if the Council will be publishing any submissions as they are received on the Council’s web site before the closing date?”
“Yes, we will endeavour to publish as they are received.”
June 17th, 2011 at 06:06
@Rayleigh Resident
The Council only sent letters to those who had already participated in the prior Consultations. But anyone can comment. Letter above tells where to send a representation.
To add to what Shaun Scrutton said in relation to logging and publishing comments, he said to me;
“For your information, the JDi online system is designed to allow representations of support or objection to be submitted to a policy document. There is a cost associated with using the system and we have not tended to use it to consult on any of the technical evidence documents since the consultation is not about support/object but simply about testing the robustness of the evidence.”
July 2nd, 2011 at 09:07
The Government Inspector has suggested that the council’s Core Strategy is unlawful (see: http://www.rochford.gov.uk/pdf/planning_corestrat_timetable.pdf).
RDC do not appear to have agreed how they will respond to this but it seems further changes and more consultations are likely for at least 2 reasons:
1. Revising numbers to agree with original RSS
2. Amending dates to allow the statutory 15 year plan period.
RDC seem to be sitting on this. I wonder why?
July 2nd, 2011 at 08:07
@ Brian.
I have been trying to get a view from the Council as to what it is going to do about that concerning statement in the Planning Inspector’s Letter. Clearly it must be correct otherwise the Council would have challenged her in their reply.
My own view is that the Council is possibly just going to ignore the fact that it is unlawful claiming that it is just a technicality.
I would imagine that The Council is relying on the Localism Bill to have been passed and the RSS (old housing targets) finally abolished by the time that the Inspector has to make a decision.
In hoping that the abolition will be in place soon the Council would, in my view, be running a big risk that the submitted CS would still be unlawful and found UNSOUND.
To date the Rochford CS has been dogged by the failure of the Government to make changes “on the run” that are lawful and the SEA obstacle would appear to be a major one because the Government is not apparently planning an SEA !!
Ironically I believe that if the Council had accepted the Motion put forward by Councillor Hoy and myself for a Local Housing Study that could have been a proper basis for not following the RSS anyway.
Again with much more irony if the Council decides that it wishes to proceed other than unlawfully then it has to revert to the RSS (old figures) and then amend the CS later.
If the latter were the case then three Members could at least call the Decision in for debate in Public.
As regards the full 15 year plan period again the Inspector could render the CS UNSOUND and I feel sure that the Council or the Portfolio Holder will have to make the necessary amendments.
Just my personal view…………………
July 3rd, 2011 at 06:07
Thanks John.
It seems to me that the current position regarding RDC’s Core Strategy is as follows::
1) is Core Strategy Lawful?
The Government Inspector has suggested that the council’s Core Strategy is unlawful (see: http://www.rochford.gov.uk/pdf/planning_corestrat_timetable.pdf).
RDC do not appear to have agreed how they will respond to this but it seems further changes and more consultations are likely for at least 2 reasons:
1. Revising numbers to agree with original (Labour) government requirements
2. Amending dates to allow the statutory 15 year plan period.
What do the council intend to do about this (and if they have even told councillors)?
2) DPD Allocations consultation
This consultation closed on 30 April 2010. It has never been analysed meaning residents’ views are still being ignored.
The Libdem’s analysis of that consultation (attached) shows 2318 responses (a record!) in total with just 1.5% in favour and 93.7% against. This means that RDC are now trying to justify their Sustainability Appraisal (because they didn’t do it properly in the first place) based on locations which have already been overwhelmingly rejected! There is no logic, transparency and it is very undemocratic.
RDC have also refused to publish hundreds of manuscript responses on their online system, so people cannot even see the details of many residents’ responses. This is also undemocratic and means residents without computers are at a substantial disadvantage. This is against council policy.
RDC wanted the consultation but continue to suppress the democratic process. .
3) Sustainability Appraisal Addendum (SAA)
The council knew their plan was unlawful but still launched a consultation to gather additional views on supplementary information on parts of a consultation it undertook years ago. It will be difficult if not impossible for people to make meaningful comments on partial onformation. To be meaningful the whole SA should be reviewed.
However, one worrying aspect does become clear. The SAA states that the council’s policy is to protect the Greenbel. But RDC’s housing allocations show that no less that 89% of the new housing will be either directly or indirectly on greenbelt. So RDC are in breach of their own policy!
Overall RDC are consulting on an unlawful strategy whilst misleading residents and suppressing consultations which give the “wrong” answer. Is this appropriate? is this the type of council we want? Will all the opposition parties join your call for a motion?
Regards
Brian
July 3rd, 2011 at 08:07
@Brian
It might be that the Council intends brief Members on all of these issues for the Full Council due to be held on 21 July and engage then in debate and make decisions on the Core Strategy.
The Council has, however, only advised me of the following;
But then next Full Council is not until 2 November !!! Perhaps there will be an Extraordinary Full Council called at an earlier date?
As you can see the note above only concerns itself with the SA Addendum and not the other issues raised by the Planning Inspector.
Will the Localism Bill have received Royal Assent by 27/7 or 21/10? Unlikely in my view. So a decision to accept the flaws would need to be taken before then? And the Inspector has already indicated that she would be likely to find such a submission unsound. Neither Timetable Scenario seems to work does it even with an extra Full Council inserted.
I agree that a decision to proceed with the flaws pointed out by the Inspector or not in either Scenario 1 or Scenario 2 should be either agreed at Full Council at the earliest opportunity on 21 July or by a formal Decision of the Cabinet Member in time for a possible “Call In” which is capable of being brought before Council on 21 July.
If residents feel that there is a lapse of procedure here then I suppose that they can, of course, resort to a complaint to the Local Government Ombudsman.
Again just my personal thoughts………………
July 3rd, 2011 at 05:07
Admin – the Libdems are again very quiet on the whole issue of the Core Strategy. You have previously stated there is no coalition with the Tories on this but just what is the Libdem policy on the CS and your views on the current position and lack of transparency?
July 3rd, 2011 at 09:07
Brian, I feel like I’ve spent an eternity opposing much of what’s in the core strategy. Without wanting to stay up late writing a reply, I think I can summarise our view in that the overall numbers of new homes to be built each year is probably not excessive, but the plan continues for too long into the future and we very much disagree about some of the locations picked.
What is the view of the HRA?
I know you are very concerned about how the consultation results have been treated, and I share that concern, because I encouraged people to respond with their views. Though actually right now I’m more worried about press reports (in the Times) about new government policy.
July 4th, 2011 at 08:07
Thanks Chris. There are two areas of concern:
1) The HRA has consistently argued that scattering houses in small groups in 13 locations across the district means diseconomies of scale and is not sustainable. There is no highways policy etc and places like Rawreth and Hockley (as ‘gateways’) will suffer. I don’t know if the numbers are right or not because they have never been studied or consulted on. The Core Strategy is simply unsound.
2) Arguably of greater concern is the way RDC are conducting the whole process. Overall RDC are consulting on an unlawful strategy whilst misleading residents and suppressing consultations which give the “wrong” answer. Democracy is certainly not being seen to be done. I am surprised that, apart from Cllr Mason, little is being said about this. Were the Libdems advised by RDC that the Inspector has suggested the CS is unlawful? Is that why this ‘blog’ has not commented on the issue?
By the way, what new policy in the Times?
July 5th, 2011 at 06:07
Brian, I’m afraid I would disagree with you about the size of developments – I would prefer to have more, smaller developments. Why? Firstly because I think it is wrong to exclude an otherwise suitable site because it is smaller than some arbitrary minimum size. Also it spreads out the impact across the district.
If I thought ‘bigger’ developments would produce more in the way of community benefits I might be persuaded, but from what I can see we waren’t going to be offered many of these anyway.
I was referring to an article in the Times predicting that the government were planning to effectively loosening green belt protection, but reading other sources that may not be the case….
July 5th, 2011 at 08:07
No need to be afraid Chris! I could understand your reasoning if we had a good highways infrastructure but, sadly, that isn’t the case and there is clearly no chance of meaningful improvements. So you are condemning the district to a downwards spiral of increasing traffic jams. The only solution is to focus development and maximise the economies of scale.
That’s assuming, of course, that we need all those houses (3,400 or 3,800) for which there is no evidence.
The DPD Allocations was rejected by 93% with every location being refused by its local population. So RDC are pursuing a proposal which is not lawful and which has been overwhelmingly rejected. That brings no credit to the district. Its time all parties admitted that.
July 5th, 2011 at 09:07
I heard from an Officer today that a Portfolio Holder report will be issued shortly, setting out the situation and possible ways forward.
July 6th, 2011 at 06:07
Chris, I too feel that this seems to have been going on for an eternity. Is there any way that in future that the processes can be streamlined in a way that ensures both thoroughness and opportunity for consultation? The current round of consultation refers back to 2006 and I recall that the process was ongoing before then. We still appear to have someway to go on this before the framework is in place. No wonder the council are including up to 2031 in the plans because the way this is going it will be getting on for 2016/17 before this framework is in place. While there are a number of amendments I would like to see. There is a need for the district to have this done, unless residents would prefer to have to market decide.
Hullbridge Parish Council have met and discussed the latest document. We have a number of concerns about some of the policies in the document. We have yet to agree the final text for submission. I will post brief details on here once we have done so.