Failure to consult properly

No analysis was initially undertaken of the public's responses to the previous (i.e. second) HAAP consultation. Why?

It is also contrary to the council's Statement of Community Involvement (SCI) (see
http://fs-drupal-rochford.s3.amazonaws.com/pdf/planning_sci_statement_comm_invol.pdf) which states the council will provide "feedback as to how people's views have been taken into account and have influenced the decision making process".

The council has admitted that they haven't taken the consultation into account before deciding the way forward. (Email from Natalie Hayward, Senior Planner, 280612 - "We have not produced an analysis of the consultation as yet, and as such this is not available. However, the full responses to the consultation can be found on our website at the following link: http://rochford.jdi-consult.net/ldf/readdoc.php?docid=173)".

The Council subsequently published a 'summary' of the last consultation. See:
http://www.rochford.gov.uk/sites/rochford.gov.uk/files/documents/files/planning_HAAP_responses_0.pdf
Its styled a "Summary of Responses" but is simply 31 pages of extracts from responses with no analysis or even an indication of volumes. So no idea if one person makes 100 comments or 100 people make one comment. Useless!

The report goes someway towards acknowledging this and starts:
"A detailed analysis of the responses will be prepared and published later in the plan-making process as part of the evidence base supporting the pre-application version of the plan."

The report is not dated(!). We asked the council for both its date and when the next stage will be available (remembering that the contract required the next stage report to be completed by September 2012). No response.

Whilst the report is undated, and the council has avoided giving us a production date, but it was posted on their web-site on 2 July 2012. This was just 4 days after the council (Natalie Hayward, 28 June) told us no analysis had been prepared. It was after the Invitation to Tender was issued in June and it was not mentioned in the Council's response dated 1 August to my formal complaint.

By itself, the summary is a meaningless collection of comments and suggests a knee-jerk reaction to my enquiry. However, it does confirm the fact that the council proceeded to the next stage of the HAAP without analysing the previous responses, contravening its SCI and suggests it was conscious of its error.

Despite the lack of analysis, it is clear that the responses are overwhelmingly against major redevelopment and want to retain Hockley's village character.

It should also be remembered that whilst the first set of proposals was sub-standard, the responses were never-the-less clearly also against major redevelopment and council has also seen the results of an impartial survey undertaken in 2009 which also shows that the majority of residents are clearly against major redevelopment.

There is a clear, consistent trail of evidence that the majority of residents want to retain the character of Hockley and keep it as a village. They are against major redevelopment but the council has simply ignored these findings and has not demonstrated that they have taken them in to account as required in their SCI. Although they have (unintentionally) fulfilled another part of the SCI - "Cynicism towards the process - feeling that their views will not be acted upon"!

It is clear that RDC did not consider the earlier consultation before proceeding to the next stage.

The Council's response: It stated: "Consultation and community involvement was undertaken throughout the production of the Core Strategy. There has been considerable community involvement in the Hockley Area Action Plan and there will be further engagement before it is finalised. The responses to the consultation can be viewed online."

Comment: Avoids the issue - a 'non-response'.