1.7
Object
Core Strategy Submission Document
Representation ID: 15767
Received: 07/10/2009
Respondent: Mr Andrew Allen
Legally compliant? No
Sound? No
Duty to co-operate? Not specified
The preffered options document published Oct 2008 details, for Rayleigh, two sites. North of London Road and South West Rayleigh. In this report only the North London Road site has been identified as "preffered" and the 100 residential properties originally foreseen for the South West Rayleigh area have now been included in the North Rayleigh site (from 450 to 550). No detail as to what the impact of expanding to North London Road site in Rayleigh to accomodate the additional 100 homes is, or why no other site in Rayleigh is suitable has been provided.
The preffered options document published Oct 2008 details, for Rayleigh, two sites. North of London Road and South West Rayleigh. In this report only the North London Road site has been identified as "preffered" and the 100 residential properties originally foreseen for the South West Rayleigh area have now been included in the North Rayleigh site (from 450 to 550). No detail as to what the impact of expanding to North London Road site in Rayleigh to accomodate the additional 100 homes is, or why no other site in Rayleigh is suitable has been provided.
Object
Core Strategy Submission Document
Representation ID: 15792
Received: 07/10/2009
Respondent: Mr Andrew Allen
Legally compliant? No
Sound? No
Duty to co-operate? Not specified
It is not true that all evidence has been considered. Sites which have been submitted have not been fully considered. My site was only visited AFTER the report had been published and has still not been added to RDC's website as a submitted site! No feedback on the suitability of my site has been provided. Where is the proof that all evidence has been considered? If there is no proof then this report is unsound and the process employed in constructing this report is open to legal challenge.
If there is proof then why hasn't it been published!
It is not true that all evidence has been considered. Sites which have been submitted have not been fully considered. My site was only visited AFTER the report had been published and has still not been added to RDC's website as a submitted site! No feedback on the suitability of my site has been provided. Where is the proof that all evidence has been considered? If there is no proof then this report is unsound and the process employed in constructing this report is open to legal challenge.
If there is proof then why hasn't it been published!
Object
Core Strategy Submission Document
Representation ID: 15861
Received: 15/10/2009
Respondent: Mr Paul Sealey
Legally compliant? Yes
Sound? No
Duty to co-operate? Not specified
Whilst the Council may have 'ticked all the boxes' I do not believe they have taken to heart the objectives set out in PPS12 to"embed community responsive policy making at its heart" or "require planners to collaborate actively with a wide range of stakeholders". This is evidenced by the low percentage of responses in previous consultations a few hundred from a population of over 80,000. I believe the original options were 'loaded' to get the answer the council wanted and they have ignored suggestions that didn't fit their model.
Whilst the Council may have 'ticked all the boxes' I do not believe they have taken to heart the objectives set out in PPS12 to"embed community responsive policy making at its heart" or "require planners to collaborate actively with a wide range of stakeholders". This is evidenced by the low percentage of responses in previous consultations a few hundred from a population of over 80,000. I believe the original options were 'loaded' to get the answer the council wanted and they have ignored suggestions that didn't fit their model.