1 Introduction

Comment

Representation ID: 34488

Received: 17/03/2016

Respondent: Highways England

Thank you for your consultation. We have no comments to make as this has little impact on the Strategic Road Network

Comment

Representation ID: 34489

Received: 01/04/2016

Respondent: Natural England

Natural England is a non-departmental public body. Our statutory purpose is to ensure that the natural environment is conserved, enhanced, and managed for the benefit of present and future generations, thereby contributing to sustainable development.

We are supportive of the principle of meaningful and early engagement of the general community, community organisations and statutory bodies in local planning matters, both in terms of shaping policy and participating in the process of determining planning applications.

However, we have no specific comments to make on this consultation.

Comment

Representation ID: 34491

Received: 04/04/2016

Respondent: Historic England

Thank you for consulting Historic England on the current update to the Council's Statement of Community Involvement (SCI). As the Government's adviser on the historic environment Historic England is keen to ensure that the protection of the historic environment is fully taken into account at all stages and levels of the local planning process. This consultation deals with the Council's updated approach to public consultation for planning policies and planning applications. These requirements are set out in legislation in the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004 (as amended by the Localism Act 2011), Town and Country Planning (Local Development) England Regulations 2004, the Town and County Planning (Local Planning) England Regulations 2012, and the Neighbourhood Planning (General) Regulations 2012 (as amended).

General Comments:
The Council's stated methods of communication all appear appropriate. We have noted that Historic England is listed as a statutory body and a specific consultation body at paragraph 2.15 in respect of plan preparation at a paragraph 2.19 in respect of consultations on the evidence base.

We hope that above comments are of assistance.

Comment

Representation ID: 34494

Received: 18/04/2016

Respondent: Chelmsford City Council

Thank you for inviting Chelmsford City Council, as a neighbouring Local Planning Authority, to submit comments on Rochford District Council's Draft Statement of Community Involvement 2016. The Council has no observations to make.

Comment

Representation ID: 34496

Received: 22/03/2016

Respondent: Hullbridge Residents Association

Our Committee requested I assist them in this response to you with respect to the above SCI.

As you must be aware HRA have been involved substantially in the two Applications in respect to the Proposed Development: Outline Planning Application No 14/00813/OUT. Proposal by Applicant: Southern And Regional Developments Ltd for development of 500 Dwellings and associated works on site known as SER6a and SER6b and application Nr. 16/00162/FUL and we now respond to your letter dated 16 March is as follows:

We refer to the Laws empowering the community to use the Freedom of Information Act, Localism Act (2011), The National Planning Policy Framework as prescribed by the Communities and Local Government Act (March 2012)which also provides the framework with which local people can produce their own Distinctive Local and Neighbourhood Plans which affect the needs and priorities of their communities (April 2012), and includes the Regulations Governing Neighbourhood Planning Laws, Government Portals in respect of use of identified Brown Field land in preference to Green Field sites. The Consultation procedures laid down in the Core Strategy and Site Allocation Documents, The Allocation DPD Document (Feb 2010) - Discussion & Consultative Document on page 1 (Introduction) that theCouncil SCI is committed to Regulation 25 Public Participation in the preparation of Planning for the District.

Having said all that we are somewhat perplexed why you invite us to make comment on this document, especially as we have not had this kind of invitation in the last 3 years that we have been dealing with the projects, asking each time for consultation but denied that request numerous times, so ask of your motives in respect of 'timing' and how you will amend the Constitution and guiding principle which clearly state that you should take requests from the community seriously and as we represent the community, how you will allow Consultation in respect of this "Statement of Community Involvement" or are you going through the ritual to show the Government Planning Department that you are 'at last' following the 'rules' which you did not bother about previously.

Having pondered your letter we suggest to you that a number of points need clarification:

Paragraph 1- The letter requests to make comments only - how do you construe this to be genuine 'consultation'. Past experience in dealing with the Planning Department has proved negative on 'consultation.

Paragraph 2- States willingness to 'engage and consult with local communities. Why is this a sudden change in attitude now as you did not bother before. You can see what we mean by being sceptical on your motives. Never-the-less we look forward to your views.

Paragraph 3- This 2007 SCI is being reviewed ? We believe this review should have taken place several years ago. Is it possible that our letters troubled your conscience by realizing that some professional folk would notice this discrepancy in your normal duties and triggered you to do something about it.

Paragraph 5- Once again you will only take comments from the community, but you do not mention 'consultation' in considering those comments.
Having had some past experience I understand the psychology of sending this type of letter is, that you know very well that the majority either do not understand what you are talking about, or just do not bother for the sake of embarrassment of misunderstanding. So, you will do exactly as you did before, allow your document to be approved on thread bear 'consultations'.

We draw to your attention to the statement made in the "Officers Report" in respect to the application Nr. 14/00813/OUT Page 6.48 clause 4.11 which states clearly that "Objections carry little weight". The previous clause indicates that the Core Strategy and the Allocations Plan were the subject of public consultation, but our submissions analyzing the document, whilst speaking to our community, who told us that they had not been consulted, and even if they had received the Consultation Document' they would not have understood the jargon, therefore we considered the Statement of Community Involvement numbers given by your planning department, were flawed.

So can you please inform us:
1) why you request our co-operation now when you did not bother in the last 3 years.

2) The residents have spoken to me about your letter which they have no understanding of and that they have never received this type of communication before, so your motives for this letter 'at this time' is being read as suspicious.

3) As you have not bothered to 'consult' with us before, we wonder how you are able to restore good faith with the community with respect to the 'comments' you wish to receive. What difference would these 'comments' make when you had demonstrated that the previous exercise made none.

4) Our Hullbridge Community are very aware that you have ignored all our submissions for the past 3 years and are very sceptical about your motives, that this is meant to show the Government Planning Department that you are at last asking for comments on a document which we know you should have put forward at least 18 months ago (we had written to you asking when you would be 'reviewing the local Development Plan, alas without response.

5) Please inform us if this letter was discussed with the whole Council including the 39 Councillors or has this been advised by the reduced committee of 13 Councillors.

Please advise what steps you are taking to make sure we have 'Proper Consultation' with you, in respect of the two planning applications aforesaid, or is this purely an exercise to please the Local Government Association and the Government Planning Department that you are following the rules..

Now, as we have said before to your Mr. S. Scrutton and Mr. M Stranks, we are looking for genuine dialogue, as we are well aware of the housing and other problems, not just locally but nationally. We speak for this whole Hullbridge community having successfully gained 98% support.

We await your response with great interest.

Yours sincerely,
Brian Marsden-Carleton

Comment

Representation ID: 34501

Received: 09/05/2016

Respondent: Basildon Borough Council

Thank you for consulting Basildon Borough Council with regard to the Rochford District Council draft Statement of Community Involvement 2016.

Basildon Borough Council welcomes the updated Statement of Community Involvement which will help to ensure consideration is given to cross-boundary issues and their affects for Basildon Borough and its residents.

Comment

Representation ID: 34520

Received: 16/05/2016

Respondent: V J Alderton

Number of people: 2

We enclose our responses to your letter of 16-03-2016. Mr Marsden-Carleton of Hullbridge Residents Asc. has helpfully formed a letter setting out our queries and concerns.

Hopefully this charade will be exposed for what it is: we would like to see a full investigation into which Councillors, if any, gained from forcing through the plans for the Houses against the wishes of 98.5% of Hullbridge Residents.

Our Committee requested I assist them in this response to you with respect to the above SCI.

As you must be aware HRA have been involved substantially in the two Applications in respect to the Proposed Development: Outline Planning Application No 14/00813/OUT. Proposal by Applicant: Southern And Regional Developments Ltd for development of 500 Dwellings and associated works on site known as SER6a and SER6b and application Nr. 16/00162/FUL and we now respond to your letter dated 16 March is as follows:

We refer to the Laws empowering the community to use the Freedom of Information Act, Localism Act (2011), The National Planning Policy Framework as prescribed by the Communities and Local Government Act (March 2012)which also provides the framework with which local people can produce their own Distinctive Local and Neighbourhood Plans which affect the needs and priorities of their communities (April 2012), and includes the Regulations Governing Neighbourhood Planning Laws, Government Portals in respect of use of identified Brown Field land in preference to Green Field sites. The Consultation procedures laid down in the Core Strategy and Site Allocation Documents, The Allocation DPD Document (Feb 2010) - Discussion & Consultative Document on page 1 (Introduction) that the Council SCI is committed to Regulation 25 Public Participation in the preparation of Planning for the District.

Having said all that we are somewhat perplexed why you invite us to make comment on this document, especially as we have not had this kind of invitation in the last 3 years that we have been dealing with the projects, asking each time for consultation but denied that request numerous times, so ask of your motives in respect of 'timing' and how you will amend the Constitution and guiding principle which clearly state that you should take requests from the community seriously and as we represent the community, how you will allow Consultation in respect of this "Statement of Community Involvement" or are you going through the ritual to show the Government Planning Department that you are 'at last' following the 'rules' which you did not bother about previously.

We draw to your attention to the statement made in the "Officers Report" in respect to the application Nr. 14/00813/OUT Page 6.48 clause 4.11 which states clearly that "Objections carry little weight". The previous clause indicates that the Core Strategy and the Allocations Plan were the subject of public consultation, but our submissions analyzing the document, whilst speaking to our community, who told us that they had not been consulted, and even if they had received the Consultation Document' they would not have understood the jargon, therefore we considered the Statement of Community Involvement numbers given by your planning department, were flawed.

So can you please inform us:
1) why you request our co-operation now when you did not bother in the last 3 years.

2) The residents have spoken to me about your letter which they have no understanding of and that they have never received this type of communication before, so your motives for this letter 'at this time' is being read as suspicious.

3) As you have not bothered to 'consult' with us before, we wonder how you are able to restore good faith with the community with respect to the 'comments' you wish to receive. What difference would these 'comments' make when you had demonstrated that the previous exercise made none.

4) Our Hullbridge Community are very aware that you have ignored all our submissions for the past 3 years and are very sceptical about your motives, that this is meant to show the Government Planning Department that you are at last asking for comments on a document which we know you should have put forward at least 18 months ago (we had written to you asking when you would be 'reviewing the local Development Plan, alas without response.

5) Please inform us if this letter was discussed with the whole Council including the 39 Councillors or has this been advised by the reduced committee of 13 Councillors.

Please advise what steps you are taking to make sure we have 'Proper Consultation' with you or is this purely an exercise to please the Local Government Association and the Government Planning Department

Comment

Representation ID: 34521

Received: 16/05/2016

Respondent: Hullbridge Residents Association

Our Committee requested I assist them in this response to you with respect to the above SCI.

As you must be aware HRA have been involved substantially in the two Applications in respect to the Proposed Development: Outline Planning Application No 14/00813/OUT. Proposal by Applicant: Southern And Regional Developments Ltd for development of 500 Dwellings and associated works on site known as SER6a and SER6b and application Nr. 16/00162/FUL and we now respond to your letter dated 16 March is as follows:

We refer to the Laws empowering the community to use the Freedom of Information Act, Localism Act (2011), The National Planning Policy Framework as prescribed by the Communities and Local Government Act (March 2012)which also provides the framework with which local people can produce their own Distinctive Local and Neighbourhood Plans which affect the needs and priorities of their communities (April 2012), and includes the Regulations Governing Neighbourhood Planning Laws, Government Portals in respect of use of identified Brown Field land in preference to Green Field sites. The Consultation procedures laid down in the Core Strategy and Site Allocation Documents, The Allocation DPD Document (Feb 2010) - Discussion & Consultative Document on page 1 (Introduction) that the Council SCI is committed to Regulation 25 Public Participation in the preparation of Planning for the District.

Having said all that we are somewhat perplexed why you invite us to make comment on this document, especially as we have not had this kind of invitation in the last 3 years that we have been dealing with the projects, asking each time for consultation but denied that request numerous times, so ask of your motives in respect of 'timing' and how you will amend the Constitution and guiding principle which clearly state that you should take requests from the community seriously and as we represent the community, how you will allow Consultation in respect of this "Statement of Community Involvement" or are you going through the ritual to show the Government Planning Department that you are 'at last' following the 'rules' which you did not bother about previously.

We draw to your attention to the statement made in the "Officers Report" in respect to the application Nr. 14/00813/OUT Page 6.48 clause 4.11 which states clearly that "Objections carry little weight". The previous clause indicates that the Core Strategy and the Allocations Plan were the subject of public consultation, but our submissions analyzing the document, whilst speaking to our community, who told us that they had not been consulted, and even if they had received the Consultation Document' they would not have understood the jargon, therefore we considered the Statement of Community Involvement numbers given by your planning department, were flawed.

So can you please inform us:
1) why you request our co-operation now when you did not bother in the last 3 years.

2) The residents have spoken to me about your letter which they have no understanding of and that they have never received this type of communication before, so your motives for this letter 'at this time' is being read as suspicious.

3) As you have not bothered to 'consult' with us before, we wonder how you are able to restore good faith with the community with respect to the 'comments' you wish to receive. What difference would these 'comments' make when you had demonstrated that the previous exercise made none.

4) Our Hullbridge Community are very aware that you have ignored all our submissions for the past 3 years and are very sceptical about your motives, that this is meant to show the Government Planning Department that you are at last asking for comments on a document which we know you should have put forward at least 18 months ago (we had written to you asking when you would be 'reviewing the local Development Plan, alas without response.

5) Please inform us if this letter was discussed with the whole Council including the 39 Councillors or has this been advised by the reduced committee of 13 Councillors.

Please advise what steps you are taking to make sure we have 'Proper Consultation' with you or is this purely an exercise to please the Local Government Association and the Government Planning Department

Comment

Representation ID: 34523

Received: 16/05/2016

Respondent: Ms Wendy Milbourn

Re: Statement of Community Involvement (SCI): Consultation Document

Our Committee requested I assist them in this response to you with respect to the above SCI.

As you must be aware HRA have been involved substantially in the two Applications in respect to the Proposed Development: Outline Planning Application No 14/00813/OUT. Proposal by Applicant: Southern And Regional Developments Ltd for development of 500 Dwellings and associated works on site known as SER6a and SER6b and application Nr. 16/00162/FUL and we now respond to your letter dated 16 March is as follows:

We refer to the Laws empowering the community to use the Freedom of Information Act, Localism Act (2011), The National Planning Policy Framework as prescribed by the Communities and Local Government Act (March 2012)which also provides the framework with which local people can produce their own Distinctive Local and Neighbourhood Plans which affect the needs and priorities of their communities (April 2012), and includes the Regulations Governing Neighbourhood Planning Laws, Government Portals in respect of use of identified Brown Field land in preference to Green Field sites. The Consultation procedures laid down in the Core Strategy and Site Allocation Documents, The Allocation DPD Document (Feb 2010) - Discussion & Consultative Document on page 1 (Introduction) that theCouncil SCI is committed to Regulation 25 Public Participation in the preparation of Planning for the District.

Having said all that we are somewhat perplexed why you invite us to make comment on this document, especially as we have not had this kind of invitation in the last 3 years that we have been dealing with the projects, asking each time for consultation but denied that request numerous times, so ask of your motives in respect of 'timing' and how you will amend the Constitution and guiding principle which clearly state that you should take requests from the community seriously and as we represent the community, how you will allow Consultation in respect of this "Statement of Community Involvement" or are you going through the ritual to show the Government Planning Department that you are 'at last' following the 'rules' which you did not bother about previously.

Having pondered your letter we suggest to you that a number of points need clarification:

Paragraph 1- The letter requests to make comments only - how do you construe this to be genuine 'consultation'. Past experience in dealing with the Planning Department has proved negative on 'consultation.

Paragraph 2- States willingness to 'engage and consult with local communities. Why is this a sudden change in attitude now as you did not bother before. You can see what we mean by being sceptical on your motives. Never-the-less we look forward to your views.

Paragraph 3- This 2007 SCI is being reviewed? We believe this review should have taken place several years ago. Is it possible that our letters troubled your conscience by realizing that some professional folk would notice this discrepancy in your normal duties and triggered you to do something about it.

Paragraph 5- Once again you will only take comments from the community, but you do not mention 'consultation' in considering those comments.
Having had some past experience I understand the psychology of sending this type of letter is, that you know very well that the majority either do not understand what you are talking about, or just do not bother for the sake of embarrassment of misunderstanding. So, you will do exactly as you did before, allow your document to be approved on thread bear 'consultations'.

We draw to your attention to the statement made in the "Officers Report" in respect to the application Nr. 14/00813/OUT Page 6.48 clause 4.11 which states clearly that "Objections carry little weight". The previous clause indicates that the Core Strategy and the Allocations Plan were the subject of public consultation, but our submissions analyzing the document, whilst speaking to our community, who told us that they had not been consulted, and even if they had received the Consultation Document' they would not have understood the jargon, therefore we considered the Statement of Community Involvement numbers given by your planning department, were flawed.

So can you please inform us:
1) Why you request our co-operation now when you did not bother in the last 3 years.

2) The residents have spoken to me about your letter which they have no understanding of and that they have never received this type of communication before, so your motives for this letter 'at this time' is being read as suspicious.

3) As you have not bothered to 'consult' with us before, we wonder how you are able to restore good faith with the community with respect to the 'comments' you wish to receive. What difference would these 'comments' make when you had demonstrated that the previous exercise made none.

4) Our Hullbridge Community are very aware that you have ignored all our submissions for the past 3 years and are very sceptical about your motives, that this is meant to show the Government Planning Department that you are at last asking for comments on a document which we know you should have put forward at least 18 months ago (we had written to you asking when you would be 'reviewing the local Development Plan, alas without response.

5) Please inform us if this letter was discussed with the whole Council including the 39 Councillors or has this been advised by the reduced committee of 13 Councillors.

Please advise what steps you are taking to make sure we have 'Proper Consultation' with you, in respect of the two planning applications aforesaid, or is this purely an exercise to please the Local Government Association and the Government Planning Department that you are following the rules..

Now, as we have said before to your Mr. S. Scrutton and Mr. M Stranks, we are looking for genuine dialogue, as we are well aware of the housing and other problems, not just locally but nationally. We speak for the whole Hullbridge community having successfully gained 98% support.

We await your response with great interest.

Yours sincerely,
Wendy Milbourn

Comment

Representation ID: 34524

Received: 16/05/2016

Respondent: Mr Frederick Ager

This is to give my acknowledgement and agreement with the forgoing statements: -

Re: Have Your Say - Draft Statement of Community Involvement (SCI): Consultation Document

Our Committee requested I assist them in this response to you with respect to the above SCI.

As you must be aware HRA have been involved substantially in the two Applications in respect to the Proposed Development:
Outline Planning Application No 14/00813/OUT. Proposal by Applicant: Southern And Regional Developments Ltd for development of 500 Dwellings and associated works on site known as SER6a and SER6b and application Nr. 16/00162/FUL and we now respond to your letter dated 16 March is as follows:

We refer to the Laws empowering the community to use the Freedom of Information Act, Localism Act (2011), The National Planning Policy Framework as prescribed by the Communities and Local Government Act (March 2012)which also provides the framework with which local people can produce their own Distinctive Local and Neighbourhood Plans which affect the needs and priorities of their communities (April 2012), and includes the Regulations Governing Neighbourhood Planning Laws, Government Portals in respect of use of identified Brown Field land in preference to Green Field sites. The Consultation procedures laid down in the Core Strategy and Site Allocation Documents, The Allocation DPD Document (Feb 2010) - Discussion & Consultative Document on page 1 (Introduction) that theCouncil SCI is committed to Regulation 25 Public Participation in the preparation of Planning for the District.

Having said all that we are somewhat perplexed why you invite us to make comment on this document, especially as we have not had this kind of invitation in the last 3 years that we have been dealing with the projects, asking each time for consultation but denied that request numerous times, so ask of your motives in respect of 'timing' and how you will amend the Constitution and guiding principle which clearly state that you should take requests from the community seriously and as we represent the community, how you will allow Consultation in respect of this "Statement of Community Involvement"?
Having pondered your letter we suggest to you that a number of points need clarification:

Paragraph 1- The letter requests to make comments only - how do you construe this to be genuine 'consultation'.
Past experience in dealing with the Planning Department has proved negative on 'consultation.

Paragraph 2- States willingness to 'engage and consult with local communities.
Why is this a sudden change in attitude now as you did not bother before. You can see what we mean by being sceptical on your motives.
Never-the-less we look forward to your views.

Paragraph 3- This 2007 SCI is being reviewed? We believe this review should have taken place several years ago.
Is it possible that our letters troubled your conscience by realizing that some professional folk would notice this discrepancy in your normal duties
and triggered you to do something about it.

Paragraph 5- Once again you will only take comments from the community, but you do not mention 'consultation' in considering those comments.
Having had some past experience I understand the psychology of sending this type of letter is, that you know very well that the majority either do not understand
what you are talking about, or just do not bother for the sake of embarrassment of misunderstanding.
So, you will do exactly as you did before,allow your document to be approved on thread bear 'consultations'.

We draw to your attention to the statement made in the "Officers Report" in respect to the application Nr. 14/00813/OUT Page 6.48 clause 4.11 which states clearly that "Objections carry little weight". The previous clause indicates that the Core Strategy and the Allocations Plan were the subject of public consultation, but our submissions analyzing the document, whilst speaking to our community, who told us that they had not been consulted, and even if they had received the Consultation Document' they would not have understood the jargon, therefore we considered the Statement of Community Involvement numbers given by your planning department, were flawed.

So can you please inform us:
1) why you request our co-operation now when you did not bother in the last 3 years.

2) The residents have spoken to me about your letter which they have no understanding of and that they have never received this type of communication before, so your motives for this letter 'at this time' is being read as suspicious.

3) As you have not bothered to 'consult' with us before, we wonder how you are able to restore good faith with the community with respect to the 'comments' you wish to receive. What difference would these 'comments' make when you had demonstrated that the previous exercise made none.

4) Our Hullbridge Community are very aware that you have ignored all our submissions for the past 3 years and are very sceptical about your motives, that this is meant to show the Government Planning Department that you are at last asking for comments on a document which we know you should have put forward at least 18 months ago (we had written to you asking when you would be 'reviewing the local Development Plan, alas without response.

5) Please inform us if this letter was discussed with the whole Council including the 39 Councillors or has this been advised by the reduced committee of 13 Councillors.

Please advise what steps you are taking to make sure we have 'Proper Consultation' with you, in respect of the two planning applications aforesaid, or is this purely an exercise to please the Local Government Association and the Government Planning Department that you are following the rules..

Now, as we have said before to your Mr. S. Scruton and Mr. M Stranks, we are looking for genuine dialogue, as we are well aware of the housing and other problems, not just locally but nationally. We speak for this whole Hullbridge community having successfully gained 98% support.

We await your response with great interest.

Yours sincerely: -
Frederick Keith Ager.

Comment

Representation ID: 34526

Received: 17/05/2016

Respondent: Mr K W Randall

I would like to make the following comments on planning matters.

Democracy - Councillors should be free to vote on planning matters and not be concerned that a no vote on a planning application may, in the future, have financial implications for the Council. They should be released from this unjust burden when making decisions.

- Decisions on planning matters should be made by all Councillors representing the Council and not just those on the Planning/Development Committee. This would, hopefully, stop decisions being based on Party Political lines.

- Residents views must be taken into account. They must also be given the time and opportunity to express their concerns over any proposed developments. The recent passing of development in Rayleigh and Hullbridge were examples of where the objections of the majority of residents was overridden.

Green Belt Land
- No further developments should be granted on Green Belt land. A staggering 274,292 houses are planned on green belt land in England, 25 per cent more than the previous count (March 2015) and in contradiction to the Government's manifesto policy to "Protect the Green Belt."

Farm and Arable Land
- This should also be protected as much as possible. The decision to build houses on prime arable land in Hall Road, Rochford was, in my humble opinion, a huge mistake.

Services and Infrastructure
- Before granting any proposed planning, the Council must ensure that both services and infrastructure are in place to cope with the development.

- It is already clear that our roads and our hospitals cannot cope with the pressures cased by the large number of housing developments in Essex. Presumably, a local Council takes into account other planning proposals within the County in order that we do not reach a gridlock situation.

Air Pollution
- This is a serious concern particularly with regard to the health of all people who live nearby to areas of heavy traffic. No roadside checks on vehicles likely to emit pollution have been carried out for over five years so some other form of pollution check must be put in place. For instance, has any pollution measurements been taken on the main road from Hockley to Rayleigh and Rayleigh itself.

Urban Sprawl
- I have lived in Hockley for over 50 years and I would hate to see the place where I have enjoyed living becoming part of some large urban sprawl of development. The future quality of life for people living in Essex seems to be in severe jeopardy by the massive over development in the County (some 70,000 homes?)

On a final note, the street where I live is in its worst condition in all the years that I have lived here and nearby roads are in the same poor condition. I suggest, therefore, you check on our existing infrastructure and the ability of how our services can cope with any future large developments under consideration.

Thank you in anticipation for your kind attention to this letter.

Yours faithfully,

Mr K. W. Randall

Comment

Representation ID: 34528

Received: 17/05/2016

Respondent: mr john surgett

Re: Have Your Say - Draft Statement of Community Involvement (SCI): Consultation Document

As you must be aware HRA have been involved substantially in the two Applications in respect to the Proposed Development: Outline Planning Application No 14/00813/OUT. Proposal by Applicant: Southern And Regional Developments Ltd for development of 500 Dwellings and associated works on site known as SER6a and SER6b and application Nr. 16/00162/FUL and we now respond to your letter dated 16 March is as follows:

We refer to the Laws empowering the community to use the Freedom of Information Act, Localism Act (2011), The National Planning Policy Framework as prescribed by the Communities and Local Government Act (March 2012)which also provides the framework with which local people can produce their own Distinctive Local and Neighbourhood Plans which affect the needs and priorities of their communities (April 2012), and includes the Regulations Governing Neighbourhood Planning Laws, Government Portals in respect of use of identified Brown Field land in preference to Green Field sites. The Consultation procedures laid down in the Core Strategy and Site Allocation Documents, The Allocation DPD Document (Feb 2010) - Discussion & Consultative Document on page 1 (Introduction) that the Council SCI is committed to Regulation 25 Public Participation in the preparation of Planning for the District.

We are also surprised that you have invited us to make comment on this document, especially as we have not had this kind of invitation in the last 3 years that we have been dealing with certain projects, asking each time for consultation but denied that request numerous times, so we ask what are your motives in respect of 'timing' and how you will amend the Constitution and Guiding Principles which clearly state that you should take requests from the community seriously and as we how you will allow Consultation in respect of this "Statement of Community Involvement" or are you going through the ritual to show the Government Planning Department that you are 'at last' following the 'rules' which you did not bother about previously.

Having digested your letter we suggest to you that a number of points need clarification:

Paragraph 1- The letter requests to make comments only - how do you construe this to be genuine 'consultation'. Past experience in dealing with your Planning Department has proved negative on any consultation.

Paragraph 2- States willingness to 'engage and consult with local communities. Why is this a sudden change in attitude now as you did not bother before. You can see what we mean by being sceptical on your motives.

Paragraph 3- We believe this 2017 SCI review should have taken place several years ago. Is it possible that our letters troubled your conscience by realizing that some professional folk would notice this discrepancy in your normal duties and triggered you to do something about it.

Paragraph 5- Once again you will only take comments from the community, but you do not mention 'consultation' in considering those comments.
You know very well that the majority of our community either do not understand what you are talking about, or just do not bother for the sake of embarrassment of misunderstanding. So, you will do exactly as you did before, allow your document to be approved on thread bear 'consultations'.

We draw to your attention to the statement made in the "Officers Report" in respect to the application Nr. 14/00813/OUT Page 6.48 clause 4.11 which states clearly that "Objections carry little weight". The previous clause indicates that the Core Strategy and the Allocations Plan were the subject of public consultation, but the submissions analyzing the document have had no response or any consultation, many residents have confirmed that they had not been consulted, and even if they had received the Consultation Document' they would not have understood the jargon, therefore we considered the Statement of Community Involvement numbers given by your Planning Department, were flawed.

So can you please inform us:
1) Why you request our co-operation now when you did not bother in the last 3 years.

2) Many of the local residents have no understanding of the SCI and that they have never received this type of communication before, so your motives for this letter 'at this time' is being read as suspicious.

3) As you have not bothered to 'consult' with us before, we wonder how you are able to restore good faith with the community with respect to the 'comments' you wish to receive. What difference would these 'comments' make when you had demonstrated that
the previous exercise made none.

4) The Hullbridge Community are very aware that you have ignored all submissions for the past 3 years and are very sceptical about your motives, this is obviously meant to show the Government Planning Department that you are at last asking for comments
on a document which we know you should have put forward at least 18 months ago.


Please advise what steps you are taking to make sure that 'Proper Consultation' is provided, in respect of the two future "Reserved Matter" planning applications, mentioned above, are submitted, or is this purely an exercise to please the Local Government Association and the Government Planning Department that you are following the rules.


We await your response with great interest.

Comment

Representation ID: 34529

Received: 18/05/2016

Respondent: Mr Alan Fuller

Re: Have Your Say - Draft Statement of Community Involvement (SCI): Consultation Document

Our Committee requested I assist them in this response to you with respect to the above SCI.

As you must be aware HRA have been involved substantially in the two Applications in respect to the Proposed Development: Outline Planning Application No 14/00813/OUT. Proposal by Applicant: Southern And Regional Developments Ltd for development of 500 Dwellings and associated works on site known as SER6a and SER6b and application Nr. 16/00162/FUL and we now respond to your letter dated 16 March is as follows:

We refer to the Laws empowering the community to use the Freedom of Information Act, Localism Act (2011), The National Planning Policy Framework as prescribed by the Communities and Local Government Act (March 2012)which also provides the framework with which local people can produce their own Distinctive Local and Neighbourhood Plans which affect the needs and priorities of their communities (April 2012), and includes the Regulations Governing Neighbourhood Planning Laws, Government Portals in respect of use of identified Brown Field land in preference to Green Field sites. The Consultation procedures laid down in the Core Strategy and Site Allocation Documents, The Allocation DPD Document (Feb 2010) - Discussion & Consultative Document on page 1 (Introduction) that theCouncil SCI is committed to Regulation 25 Public Participation in the preparation of Planning for the District.

Having said all that we are somewhat perplexed why you invite us to make comment on this document, especially as we have not had this kind of invitation in the last 3 years that we have been dealing with the projects, asking each time for consultation but denied that request numerous times, so ask of your motives in respect of 'timing' and how you will amend the Constitution and guiding principle which clearly state that you should take requests from the community seriously and as we represent the community, how you will allow Consultation in respect of this "Statement of Community Involvement"?
Having pondered your letter we suggest to you that a number of points need clarification:

Paragraph 1- The letter requests to make comments only - how do you construe this to be genuine 'consultation'. Past experience in dealing with the Planning Department has proved negative on 'consultation.

Paragraph 2- States willingness to 'engage and consult with local communities. Why is this a sudden change in attitude now as you did not bother before. You can see what we mean by being sceptical on your motives. Never-the-less we look forward to your views.

Paragraph 3- This 2007 SCI is being reviewed? We believe this review should have taken place several years ago. Is it possible that our letters troubled your conscience by realizing that some professional folk would notice this discrepancy in your normal duties and triggered you to do something about it.

Paragraph 5- Once again you will only take comments from the community, but you do not mention 'consultation' in considering those comments.
Having had some past experience I understand the psychology of sending this type of letter is, that you know very well that the majority either do not understand what you are talking about, or just do not bother for the sake of embarrassment of misunderstanding. So, you will do exactly as you did before, allow your document to be approved on thread bear 'consultations'.

We draw to your attention to the statement made in the "Officers Report" in respect to the application Nr. 14/00813/OUT Page 6.48 clause 4.11 which states clearly that "Objections carry little weight". The previous clause indicates that the Core Strategy and the Allocations Plan were the subject of public consultation, but our submissions analyzing the document, whilst speaking to our community, who told us that they had not been consulted, and even if they had received the Consultation Document' they would not have understood the jargon, therefore we considered the Statement of Community Involvement numbers given by your planning department, were flawed.

So can you please inform us:
1) why you request our co-operation now when you did not bother in the last 3 years.

2) The residents have spoken to me about your letter which they have no understanding of and that they have never received this type of communication before, so your motives for this letter 'at this time' is being read as suspicious.

3) As you have not bothered to 'consult' with us before, we wonder how you are able to restore good faith with the community with respect to the 'comments' you wish to receive. What difference would these 'comments' make when you had demonstrated that the previous exercise made none.

4) Our Hullbridge Community are very aware that you have ignored all our submissions for the past 3 years and are very sceptical about your motives, that this is meant to show the Government Planning Department that you are at last asking for comments on a document which we know you should have put forward at least 18 months ago (we had written to you asking when you would be 'reviewing the local Development Plan, alas without response.

5) Please inform us if this letter was discussed with the whole Council including the 39 Councillors or has this been advised by the reduced committee of 13 Councillors.

Please advise what steps you are taking to make sure we have 'Proper Consultation' with you, in respect of the two planning applications aforesaid, or is this purely an exercise to please the Local Government Association and the Government Planning Department that you are following the rules..

Now, as we have said before to your Mr. S. Scruton and Mr. M Stranks, we are looking for genuine dialogue, as we are well aware of the housing and other problems, not just locally but nationally. We speak for this whole Hullbridge community having successfully gained 98% support.

We await your response with great interest.

Yours sincerely: -
Alan Fuller

Comment

Representation ID: 34530

Received: 18/05/2016

Respondent: Robert and Carol Ward

Re: Have Your Say - Draft Statement of Community Involvement (SCI): Consultation Document

Our Committee requested I assist them in this response to you with respect to the above SCI.

As you must be aware HRA have been involved substantially in the two Applications in respect to the Proposed Development: Outline Planning Application No 14/00813/OUT. Proposal by Applicant: Southern And Regional Developments Ltd for development of 500 Dwellings and associated works on site known as SER6a and SER6b and application Nr. 16/00162/FUL and we now respond to your letter dated 16 March is as follows:

We refer to the Laws empowering the community to use the Freedom of Information Act, Localism Act (2011), The National Planning Policy Framework as prescribed by the Communities and Local Government Act (March 2012)which also provides the framework with which local people can produce their own Distinctive Local and Neighbourhood Plans which affect the needs and priorities of their communities (April 2012), and includes the Regulations Governing Neighbourhood Planning Laws, Government Portals in respect of use of identified Brown Field land in preference to Green Field sites. The Consultation procedures laid down in the Core Strategy and Site Allocation Documents, The Allocation DPD Document (Feb 2010) - Discussion & Consultative Document on page 1 (Introduction) that theCouncil SCI is committed to Regulation 25 Public Participation in the preparation of Planning for the District.

Having said all that we are somewhat perplexed why you invite us to make comment on this document, especially as we have not had this kind of invitation in the last 3 years that we have been dealing with the projects, asking each time for consultation but denied that request numerous times, so ask of your motives in respect of 'timing' and how you will amend the Constitution and guiding principle which clearly state that you should take requests from the community seriously and as we represent the community, how you will allow Consultation in respect of this "Statement of Community Involvement"?
Having pondered your letter we suggest to you that a number of points need clarification:

Paragraph 1- The letter requests to make comments only - how do you construe this to be genuine 'consultation'. Past experience in dealing with the Planning Department has proved negative on 'consultation.

Paragraph 2- States willingness to 'engage and consult with local communities. Why is this a sudden change in attitude now as you did not bother before. You can see what we mean by being sceptical on your motives. Never-the-less we look forward to your views.

Paragraph 3- This 2007 SCI is being reviewed? We believe this review should have taken place several years ago. Is it possible that our letters troubled your conscience by realizing that some professional folk would notice this discrepancy in your normal duties and triggered you to do something about it.

Paragraph 5- Once again you will only take comments from the community, but you do not mention 'consultation' in considering those comments.
Having had some past experience I understand the psychology of sending this type of letter is, that you know very well that the majority either do not understand what you are talking about, or just do not bother for the sake of embarrassment of misunderstanding. So, you will do exactly as you did before, allow your document to be approved on thread bear 'consultations'.

We draw to your attention to the statement made in the "Officers Report" in respect to the application Nr. 14/00813/OUT Page 6.48 clause 4.11 which states clearly that "Objections carry little weight". The previous clause indicates that the Core Strategy and the Allocations Plan were the subject of public consultation, but our submissions analyzing the document, whilst speaking to our community, who told us that they had not been consulted, and even if they had received the Consultation Document' they would not have understood the jargon, therefore we considered the Statement of Community Involvement numbers given by your planning department, were flawed.

So can you please inform us:
1) why you request our co-operation now when you did not bother in the last 3 years.

2) The residents have spoken to me about your letter which they have no understanding of and that they have never received this type of communication before, so your motives for this letter 'at this time' is being read as suspicious.

3) As you have not bothered to 'consult' with us before, we wonder how you are able to restore good faith with the community with respect to the 'comments' you wish to receive. What difference would these 'comments' make when you had demonstrated that the previous exercise made none.

4) Our Hullbridge Community are very aware that you have ignored all our submissions for the past 3 years and are very sceptical about your motives, that this is meant to show the Government Planning Department that you are at last asking for comments on a document which we know you should have put forward at least 18 months ago (we had written to you asking when you would be 'reviewing the local Development Plan, alas without response.

5) Please inform us if this letter was discussed with the whole Council including the 39 Councillors or has this been advised by the reduced committee of 13 Councillors.

Please advise what steps you are taking to make sure we have 'Proper Consultation' with you, in respect of the two planning applications aforesaid, or is this purely an exercise to please the Local Government Association and the Government Planning Department that you are following the rules..

Now, as we have said before to your Mr. S. Scruton and Mr. M Stranks, we are looking for genuine dialogue, as we are well aware of the housing and other problems, not just locally but nationally. We speak for this whole Hullbridge community having successfully gained 98% support.

We await your response with great interest.