Object
Core Strategy Submission Document: Schedule of minor amendments (2011)
Representation ID: 28247
Received: 14/09/2011
Respondent: mrs ALISON HEINE
Agent: mrs ALISON HEINE
Legally compliant? No
Sound? No
Duty to co-operate? Not specified
No confidence in what is happening
H7 still does not comply with RSS policy H3 and there is no sense of urgency to address the immediate need for Gypsy-Traveller sites
Policy as drafted would enable the Council to do nothing until 2018 to address an immediate need that should have been met by 2011
Object to the method of consultation. It has taken an hour to work out how to use this form.
I have no idea if I am ticking to say I find it sound -as I do not but the form is not clear how to respond to this.
H7 does not comply with RSS policy H3 as the 15 pitches needed by 2011 have not been provided and the deadline to meet the need is extended in full to 2018. How can there be said to be a 5 year supply of land for Gypsy-Travellers when the land needed for an immediate need identiifed in July 2009 does not have to be found until 2018?
This form is really difficult to use.
I only discovered these further changes by chance following a recent planning appeal
I no longer have any confidence in this process. It is quite scary how impossibly complex this has become. How does the Council expect the public to respond?.
How can the Core Strategy be sound when it has failed to do what is required by RSS policy?
It is not accepted that there has been a low need for Gypsy-Travellers in this district justifying review in 2018 ie in 5 years not 15 years. This is not supported by the number of appeal and families living on unauthorised sites.
If the Council not required to provide a 15 year supply of land for Gypsy sites to be PPS3/PPS12 compliant ie to 2027. Why should Gypsy-Travellers not be treated the same as housing land allocations?
The Council should have brought forward a site allocation DPD as advised by C 1/2006 to meet the immediate need.