If you look extremely carefully at the council website , you can see there’s another twist in the housing figures issue. The Government Inspector has written to the District Council with some thoughts here. Her key sentences:
Your letter indicates that you have reviewed the housing numbers included in the Core Strategy and conclude that there will be a need to adjust the housing policies in the Core Strategy.
Using the attached template, please set out the changes you now wish to introduce. On the basis of what is said in your letter, I am of the view that such changes could not be regarded as minor, albeit that the main thrust of changes would relate to the timescale of delivery rather than the overall quantums. These changes will therefore need to be subject to consultation and SA. The consultation period would need to be a minimum of six weeks and fulfil any requirements in the SCI.
SCI = “Statement of Community Involvement” SA = “Sustainability Appraisal”.
However the Council response is against further consultation:
From the Council’s perspective it is disappointing to see your conclusions about the proposed changes to the Core Strategy being considered as significant changes and that a further consultation should be carried out to gather views prior to consideration at the examination. It seems to me this will inevitably result in a significant delay in progressing the Core Strategy to adoption and this is considered to be very important given the challenges the Council has recently faced from developers promoting ad hoc housing schemes.
Councillor John Mason explains in detail on his own website here.
The Inspector’s comments echo the motion put forward on 27 July by Cllrs Mason & Hoy for evidence on the quantum of housing required, which was defeated by the Conservative whip. Good to know that the Inspector has also picked up on this issue – residents have never been consulted on this key issue!
Hockley Residents Association has made a formal complaint to the council following the discovery that one section in 459 (approx) comments relating to the recent DPD Consultation have not been posted by the council, who have refused a number of requests to correct this.
So if the Inspector does order further consultation, people will be well advised to ensure their responses are properly recorded.
Hi Brian
Your post prompted me to go and look at the Allocations DPD Consultation online for Hawkwell. I did not find an example of your complaint but another one.
What is the point of an online system to give feedback on what representors have said if you have to go to the Council Offices to refer to a Paper Copy?
Will Members who make the decisions on the LDF Sub Committee reviewing this even bother to ask to see the paper copy? (On reflection it will probably not go to the sub committee because the consultation itself was ordered by the Portfolio Holder alone.)
Is the Council being just plain lazy to type it in because the residents were not online representors?
Or is it a “done deal” and it does not matter?
Not just one example, there are others on just one page.
http://rochford.jdi-consult.net/ldf/viewreps.php?docelemid=25784&docid=171
Perhaps other residents/groups could check on theirs to see how widespread this is.
John, it DOES appear to be the same for the Hullbridge feedback too. My written one is certainly see paper copy for details’.