The Local Development Framework SubCommittee could be one of the most important working groups on the District Council for the next few years. It will be looking at the LDF and future development.
It’s meant to have 6 members – 5 Conservatives and one Lib Dem .
At last Full Council Chris Black (Downhall and Rawreth Ward) was put forward by the Lib Dem group as our member, however the Conservatives wanted a bit more time to pick their team of five. They’ve now decided on the following persons:
Heather Glynn (Hawkwell South)
Keith Gordon (Rochford)
Keith Hudson (Hockley Central)
Colin Seagers (Foulness and Great Wakering)
Carole Weston (Hockley Central)
Will the new committee want to start with a clean sheet by completing the long overdue analysis of the consultation undertaken in March 2010? We all know that it gives the “wrong” answer but it did happen and it has to enter the evidence chain, so lets get it done. The curent situation does absolutely nothing for democracy and a transparent process.
Hope you do win your place Chris, otherwise no Rayleigh person. I am sure the 2 Hockley Central members are exc. and experienced but why 2 from one area and no one from Rayleigh?
My place is guaranteed Bruce – the sub-committee is constituted as 5 Conservatives and 1 Lib Dem.
I am mildly surprised that there isn’t a Rayleigh Conservative on the committee though.
Chris – please may we have your views on the disgraceful suppression of the March 2010 consultation?
You mean this one Brian?
https://www.onlinefocus.org/?p=4940
Chris – that was nine months ago! Open democracy is clearly being suppressed and, as a member of the new LDF sub-committee, I would suggest you make your current position clear.
Brian
To clarify for other readers, this consultation was about the precise sites to be used, on the assumption that the general areas supported by the council would be accepted.
I appreciate your concern.
Trouble is, the inspector is still carrying out her examination – it’s taking longer than the council expected. -As I said, I appeciate your concern -but there’s not much point in debating the precise sites until she’s finished and issued her report.
I think it’s fair to say that the timing of this consultation could have been better!
Incidentally this is not a new subcommittee, it existed in previous years but didn’t meet once last year.
Thanks Chris, I understand that but it did take place and has to be recorded in the evidence base. It cannot simply be ignored as you now seem to be suggesting.
But Chris, some of the precise sites the LDF Sub Committee agreed upon are now subject to planning applications at a time when, prima facie, by the Forest Heath precedent in the High Court the (general) Locations for these sites all need to be justified in material planning terms over all other alternatives which is something that the Council did not either do or publish.
(The sites are for example Hawkwell Christmas Tree Farm, Rochford Hall Road, Brays Lane.)
The horse is definitely behind the cart and my concern is that the “Forest Heath Review” could be completed well after planning applications are Determined.
Is the LDF Sub Committee going to consider this situation?
Chris, if the council do not formally consider the public consultation it choose to undertake, I believe that will open the door to future legal challenges by prospectic developers. Why is the council ignoring the practical implications, not to mention the suppression of democracy?
Guys, you deserve proper answers, I will reply in due course.
Hi Chris
In case you weren’t aware of this the Planning Inspector is discussing the revised timetable for the Core Strategy Public Examination with the Council.
Ms. Laura Graham’s letter is here (http://www.rochford.gov.uk/pdf/planning_corestrat_timetable.pdf) and you will note the assurance she requires by 8 June.
Whilst I am here and posting you might like to see the other extracts from correspondence that has been published between Ms. Laura Graham and the Council. Miss Graham seems to be keener than the Council to publish the correspondence in a PUBLIC Examination.
http://www.rochford.gov.uk/planning/policy/local_development_framework/core_strategy_submitted/review_of_sustainability_appr.aspx
For you and other readers I have highlighted some interesting comments.
RDC has published new letters from the Inspector (at her insistence!). The council has to go back to the original RSS requirements and undertake yet more consultations. This means that gthere is now no reason why the March 2010 consultation should not be properly evaluated.
Interesting that the Inspector has criticised RDC communications!
I am advised that the published timetable anticipates the review of the Sustainability Appraisal will be available for consultation on 13 June, with the consultation to run until 11 July.
I am also advised that it’s not anticipated that any of the outstanding major applications will come to the Development Committee before September. In any event, officers reports on each application, when they do come forward for a decision, will set out in detail the status of the Core Strategy at that time and explain the implications for the decisions to be taken.
I gather (from your “I am advised” remarks) that the LDF sub-committee is still not actually functioning, despite no meetings for over a year. Is this appropriate?
The Echo is tonight reporting a revised major application for the Brays Lane area. Does that fit in to your timetable?
Brian, you are correct the LDF Sub-Committee still doesn’t have any scheduled meetings.
H’mmm, I think a clear picture is emerging!
Any news about plans for the march 2010 DPD Allocations consultation analysis?
Chris, Thanks for the update from the LDF Committee Member perspective. As a Member could I ask you to send me a copy of statement by Officers relating to “I am also advised that it’s not anticipated that any of the outstanding major applications will come to the Development Committee before September” because this affects an Application in my Ward and I have not had that advice. Thanks. John.
Just interested in the response to Brian’s question regarding the Brays Lane application, and whether it will go before the Development Committee before September, which I don’t think was answered? I have seen the new submission and aside from reducing the number of properties from 175 to 100 (the original RDC Core Strategy number for the site), it has totally ignored all the concerns of the residents that have been raised in the consultation process. The fact that the land owner is also on the RDC Committee and they are required to provide a new access to King Edmund school, wouldn’t have anything to do with the fact that this application seems to be totally oblivious to its green belt status and the concerns that have been raised!
Received thank you, Chris.
Chris – please may I have a response regarding your views on the ongoing, undemocratic suppression of the DPD Allocations consultation. I’m getting the impression you are following the coalition line on this one.
In any event, I’ve submitted a formal complaint on this to RDC, so that it can be tested with the ombudsman, but I am surprised that you remain quiet on this.
Sorry , Brian, what do you mean by “Suppression”?
Chris – your question surprises me greatly.
RDC held the DPD Allocations consultation which closed on 30 April 2010. It is believed to have attracted a record number of responses, and scanning the online system, suggests they were virtually unanimous in rejecting the sites put forward. 14 months later, the council still has not evaluated the responses and published the findings. This means residents views are being ignored at a time when planning applications for the same sites are being put forwarded.
That is what I call “suppression” and its a question I have repeatedly asked.
What would you call it?
Ok Brian, sorry for being obtuse but I wanted to know exactly what you meant before replying.
There is no ‘coalition line’. Ron Oatham and other Lib Dem candidates (and indeed other candidates in Hullbridge, Hawkwell and Rochford) stood for re-election in opposition to the LDF proposals . If there is a coaltion in the district in relation to the LDF , it is a coaltion of parties and independents against the current proposals.
The council has published the findings to the extent of the online responses being on the council website. My view is that yes, the council should have collated all the responses and published a summary of how many comments were in support and how many were against each proposal, amd how many were neutral. As far as I am aware this has not been done (unless I’ve missed it somewhere).
=========================
The only summary I’ve seen is the one we did onlinefocus, viz:
Land north of London Road, Rayleigh – 550 dwellings between 2015 and 2021.
203 responses regarding the general location. None in favour, 7 comments , 196 objections.
West Rochford – 450 dwellings before 2015, 150 more between 2015 and 2021
23 responses regarding the general location. None in favour, 7 comments, 16 objections.
West Hockley – 50 dwellings before 2015
496 responses regarding the general location. None in favour 15 comments 481 objections.
South Hawkwell – 175 dwellings before 2015
25 responses regarding the general location. None in favour, 10 comments, 15 objections.
East Ashingdon – 100 dwellings before 2015
83 responses regarding the general location. None in favour. 11 comments, 72 objections.
South-West Hullbridge – 250 dwellings between 2015 and 2021, 250 more after 2021
891 responses regarding the general location. 4 in favour 20, comments, 867 objections.
South Canewdon – 60 dwellings between 2015 and 2021
20 responses regarding the general location. 1 in favour , 5 comments, 14 objections.
South East Ashingdon, 500 after 2021
24 responses regarding the general location. 2 in favour 2 comments, 20 objections.
West Great Wakering, 250 after 2021
Industrial sites suggested for housing:
Rawreth Industrial Estate
33 responses. 9 in favour, 12 comments, 12 objections.
Stambridge Mills
17 responses 4 in favour, 4 comments, 9 objections.
Star Lane Industrial esate, Great Wakering
12 responses 5 in favour, 4 coments, 3 objections.
Star Lane , Brickworks, Great Wakering
10 responses 5 in favour, 4 comments, 1 objection.
Eldon Way , Industrial Estate, Hockley
17 responses 4 in favour, 6 comments, 7 objections. UPDATE: Plus another 460 responses elsewhere in the consultation – 2 comments, 458 objections.
================================
Of course, if the Inspector chucks out the LDF this consultation will become much less meaningful.
“Of course, if the Inspector chucks out the LDF this consultation will become much less meaningful.”
New consultation start 13 June and finishes 11 July.
Here is the explanation of the two scenarios from the Council below.
(basically it only goes back to a further public consultation if the review and first consultation shows that there are no amendments or changes required)
The reasons for the two scenarios are that, in broad terms, there are two potential outcome of the Sustainability Appraisal (SA) review. One in which the review of the SA suggests no changes to the Core Strategy (Scenario 1), the other in which SA recommends changes to the Core Strategy (Scenario 2).
“SA Review consultation” and “SA Review published for consultation” refer to the same consultation which would be undertaken on the SA in either scenario.
The SA Review consultation will be targeted at participants in the Core Strategy examination process, and specific consultation bodies (Natural England, Environment Agency, Parish Councils, etc), but anyone may submit comments on the review it if they so wish.
Thanks for reminding about your summary – I’ll use it in my complaint to the Ombudsman.
However, this is missing the point. It should be RDC that does the analysis and it should form part of the evidence base that the council bases its future proposals on. You simply cannot have a consultation and the suppress the results because they don’t suit you.
I also suggest its in RDC’s interest to complete the consultation properly or, as I’ve said before, its a flaw in the process developers may well exploit.
Meanwhile residents in places like Hawkwell and Ashingdon are facing current planning applications whilst their clear rejection of the proposals remain gathering [electronic] dust on the council’s shelves.