I've read the documentation linked to the New Local Plan: Issues and Options Document 2017 and put together some feedback which I hope will be considered.

Undefined Core Wording

Throughout the document there are words and terms used without any definition or measurement of success linked to them. These terms are often used in official Government documents such as this and it is important, yet seemingly always forgotten, to set definitions ensuring all stakeholders understand and agree.

Most proposal documents, across the public and private sectors, contain modern and popular buzzwords, words that we (the general public) positively associate but are technically meaningless unless they are undefined.

Examples of words used throughout the proposal but with no detail are:

Sufficient - This would imply that we understand the current requirements for housing. How many are needed to meet demand now? If we don't know what we need now then how can we possibly project what is needed in the future?

High Quality - A very subjective term. My idea of high quality is Next, another person might say Harrods. I'd suggest that the definition should be new properties meeting home for life requirements and achieving an EPC rating of at least B.

Sustainable - A well used word throughout the document but are we talking sustainable from an infrastructure, environmental or building perspective, or a.n.other or a combination of all? We, the public, associate the word 'sustainable' very positively but it's use is generally (I've tried to think of another word other than this but) pointless.

Affordable - As a district, as a county and as a country we need to put a suitable, understood and publicly agreed definition of "affordable". We are traditionally a nation of homeowners and yet the perceived benchmark of property affordability is generally based on a fixed percentage less than the market rental value. I've spoken to hundreds of people across the broadest spectrum of society regarding this and I have a proposal:

1 Bedroom
5 x the average salary for the County or Country, with a 20% deposit

2 Bedroom
(5 x the average salary) + (2.5 x the average salary) with a 20% deposit.

3 Bedroom
(5 x the average salary) + (5 x the average salary) with a 20% deposit

Schemes such as Shared Ownership and Help to Buy simply cover over the affordability issue and saddle the applicants with a level of debt that would not normally have been able to achieve. I don't think we can consider the burden of debt to be "affordable".

Strategic Goals

Broad strategic goals by themselves are, again, pointless. Every strategic goal should be accompanied by a benchmark of success so that the public can understand what we mean by it and how we will judge our success.

Successful private companies use similar language in setting goals but they are (or should be) accompanied by a section around "this is our agreed definition of success" per objective. This simple addition allows all who read the proposal to understand the vision of those charged with delivering it. We can then agree or disagree on those goals but it would be from a position of knowledge, not a broad and undefined thought put down on paper.

Examples below:

Encouraging walking, cycling and the use of passenger and public transport - How? We can't even secure a regular bus service to existing communities (the number 8 bus route through Hawkwell being an example, not a remote area). There are a number of existing paths that I know of within the district that cannot fit 2 people walking side by side let alone pushchairs, mobility scooters etc. From the perspective of the public this "objective" is worthless. You could achieve this objective by building dedicated walking and cycle links (which would be fantastic) but you could also solve this by putting up a single poster highlighting the health benefits of walking. Both examples would be a tick against the objective but only one would be truly valued.

Proportionate and suitable infrastructure - Every public department, from District Council to the NHS to central Government, uses this phrase and it is never defined because it requires confirmation of additional factors. I consider myself to be an informed member of the electorate but I couldn't even begin to describe what I think this means within this document and yet it is a document meant for public review and feedback.

Attracting and retaining businesses to provide local employment opportunities - A fantastic sentence but the demise of the traditional High Street is a testament to how this cannot be controlled by local Government. It is private landlords who own the properties within High Street locations and their vision is, for the most part, short sighted financial gain.

General Comment

We currently have a target to deliver 250 new homes per year, a target that has been achieved only twice in 10 years, and the solution to this is to agree another plan with a new target of 331 homes per year??

My View

* Define "affordable"! How many generations are we going to leave in the rental sector because home ownership in unattainable without being burdened with huge levels of debt?
* If we cannot achieve a target of 250 new homes per year, how much confidence should the public have that we can deliver more? The plan agreed to build 250 new homes would have followed the same process as this one and I've yet to read anything that gives me more hope than the last.
* There are 2 types of housing desperately required; starter homes and retirement homes. With these 2 segments in such short supply it pressures the middle housing segment resulting in astronomical and unsustainable price rises.
o Starter homes should be the definition of affordable noted within this email. Provision of 1, 2 and 3 bedroom properties will allow generation rent to become homeowners.
o Retirement homes should have focus on community, health and activity. In order to truly cater for this ever increasing portion of our population, we need to build specifically for them. What are their requirements? How can we meet them? What is the most cost effective way of meeting the requirements? Dare we ask such direct questions...
* District Government MUST own, or be very close to a central body who does, the commercial buildings in any High Street type location. Only this approach will ensure that we are not left with a ghost town of empty shops, unable to be occupied because of the high rental costs.
* District Government MUST contract the house build themselves, via a holding company with directors of building experience if necessary. There are no shareholders to appease or a bloated executive team to pay. I've followed a number of local housing developments where the requirement of affordable housing was part of the accepted planning permissions but a compromise to the number of affordable housing was agreed following the building company reassessing the "viability" mid build. Control of these developments is the most efficient way to deliver AFFORDABLE housing for starter homes and SUITABLE housing for the 60 year+ age group.
o To effectively grant housebuilders permission to develop vast areas of our community will see the properties THEY stand to make the most financial gain on. Not the properties our community needs or can afford.
* Do you really think that 50 homes per year for the over 75's is enough? I'd like to see the data that supports this but would hazard a guess that it does NOT include those over 75 now that are living in 3+ bedroom family homes due to a lack of suitable housing available to them.
* When we consider infrastructure, we must consider air quality. We view traffic lights, pedestrian crossings and roundabouts as a normal feature of today's roads but it is these that cause higher pollutants than free flowing traffic, High Road in Rayleigh for instance. The efficiency of any car (petrol, diesel, hybrid or electric) is negatively affected with stop start traffic flow so we can surely say that a steady speed road network is in the interests of our environment.

Summary

Without agreed definitions throughout this document, I don't see it as something that can or should be supported. It is simply paying lip service to national concerns without constructively proposing any real solutions.

Ours is a fantastic district, within a brilliant county in an amazing country. We can look at things differently and lead the way for others to follow. Be brave!