1.2

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