If the purpose of this document is to provide people with the opportunity to consider and comment upon allocation options that have been put forward for development then RDC should ensure that the information provided to people is accurate, unbiased and objective. Without this being the case meaningful public debate is impossible and fine words with regards RDC's commitment to community involvement are just words.
Appendix a details sites that have been considered by RDC and supposedly details how the sites compare in terms of size, location, constraints and viability.
The data contained for the site I submitted is incorrect, biased and unobjective. As follows:
- the boundary of the site is shown incorrectly.
- RDC deems that the site requires "Significant investment in walking/public transport". Although I have sought clarification of what this significant investment is, why it is required and why this comment has specifically associated with my site and not others, RDC has yet to provide any additional information with regards this.
- Likely loss of character of site. Again RDC has yet to provide any further detail with regards this comment but surely the character of any site that is developed will change. Why this comment has been associated with my site and not others also remains a mystery.
- "The site offers minimal contributions to the housing targets and therefore will also offer minimal community benefits". The rationale that has been employed here seems to be that if the site is big it is better. I believe that exactly the opposite is true. Bigger sites result in greater urban sprawl. Bigger sites will only be actioned by large national building companies, not smaller local builders (who are more likely to be residents of RDC after all). Large sites necessitate lots of expensive infrastructure before any home can be built, whilst smaller sites can offer a greater level of reuse of existing infrastructure. Selecting a low number of bigger sites is much easier for RDC planning department to manage (less effort and therefore less RDC planning cost in preparing their plan). However, RDC residents will be paying for this false economy for a very long time.
Despite making attempts (including raising a formal complaint) to get some clarity from RDC with regards their comments on the suitability of my site they have yet to do so. Mr Scrutton has on two occassions authored a response to my requests for clarity but neither of these has provided any further details with regards my site. Instead I have was advised by RDC that the purpose of the consultation period is the right way to raise my concerns. I am of the belief that the community would be better served by RDC ensuring that the information they provide into the public consultation is accurate before they release it.
This has now been escalated to the Local Government Ombudsman who have actioned RDC to respond.
So please beware, do not consider that all you read within the DPD document set is true or unbiased.
One last point, I think that RDC residents should be concerned with regards the level of dilligence and openess of RDC's planning department with regards this matter, and also the unnecessary costs that they have incurred by not providing information to justify their "analysis" of submitted sites.
I am keen to discuss and share experiences of RDC with others who have submitted their sites for "consideration".