4 Resourcing, Monitoring and Review

Comment

Representation ID: 42433

Received: 29/10/2021

Respondent: Mr Mark Allen

I write to express my serious concerns about the council’s proposals of the Spatial Options Consultation, beginning with the communication to local residents and administration of process. The online consultation portal and supporting documents, reports, interactive maps etc. I consider to be deliberately designed to confuse even the most educated of local residents. The sheer volume of supporting documents and their size makes it almost impossible for the average local resident to respond objectively and succinctly outline their thoughts – good or bad.

For this reason I have not responded through the portal as simply put I am struggling to navigate it. Instead, by cc’ing in one of our local councillors I hope my thoughts are duly considered by the council.

Object

Representation ID: 42473

Received: 19/09/2021

Respondent: Mr Keith Appleyard

As for the Spatial options Rochford District Council have put forward it nothing short of a disgrace!
Far too complicated for ordinary people to understand and looks like it has been designed to put people
off objecting, so shame on you for that!

Comment

Representation ID: 42519

Received: 18/09/2021

Respondent: Pauline Chelmsford

The volume and format of information contained in the consultation was difficult to access and view online. It was difficult to understand the context of the consultation and RDC are not reaching residents who have no internet.

Comment

Representation ID: 42698

Received: 17/09/2021

Respondent: Mrs Susan Martin

The volume of information contained in the consultation was difficult to access and view online. Some links did not work properly. RDC are not reaching residents who have no internet.

Comment

Representation ID: 43087

Received: 14/09/2021

Respondent: Chelmsford City Council

Thank you for also consulting Chelmsford City Council (CCC) on the Statement of Community Involvement (SCI) 2021 Review.

CCC considers that the SCI review is generally clear and comprehensive. The SCI explains how the Council will involve the community and stakeholders in the planning process and the consultation methods proposed are supported by CCC.

CCC notes the recognition that as part of the statutory Duty to Cooperate, neighbouring councils and other relevant organisations must work together on strategic cross boundary issues.

Chelmsford City Council will continue to actively engage with Rochford District Council on each other’s respective Local Plans.

Comment

Representation ID: 43563

Received: 20/09/2021

Respondent: Hullbridge Residents Association

Number of people: 17

[NOTE - all section references/citations in this section relate to Issues & Options consultation, rather than Spatial Options]

Clause 1.7 Statement of Community Involvement.
Having been disappointed with the first Statement of Community Involvement document in 2013 and 2016 we take the clause 1.7 on page 2 seriously and look forward to proper ‘consultation’ by RDC, and not use our submission purely as a ‘tick-box’ exercise to prove to the Planning Inspector that the regulations are observed and, our views have been taken into account but we have not seen these issues progressed to amendments in the Local Plan. HRA represent the Hullbridge community and have the right for engagement as stated in the NPPF and the Localism Act.

Clauses 1.8 & 1.9.
A plan indicating 36 additional sites on Map A in Hullbridge along with a further 6 sites not identified on Map A. Please refer to our Exhibit A on pages 14 and 15.

Clause 1.10 is of special interest as it mentions “on-going consultation” at every stage. We did not have the opportunity to discuss ‘The Draft Scoping Report’ which was published on the RDC websites, and the residents, businesses and other ‘stakeholders’ on the RDC mailing list were not consulted (HRA is a Stakeholder and Representative)- continually ignored by RDC- indeed HRA have correspondence relating to this issue that “if we did not like it we should consider litigation’.

Clause 1.14 on page 4 is of special interest to us as we placed emphasis on the Localism Act (2011) with the Managing Director of RDC and were told that the Localism Act was irrelevant. Why is it now more relevant than before? We request this ‘Act’ to be included as it supports Human Rights.

Clause 1.16. Only one ‘drop-in session’ was set up at Hullbridge Community Centre on 24/8/21. The attendance was low, HRA committee had 9 committee members present who asked questions and had responses which do not reflect the issues put forward in this ‘Plea’. One answer took us by surprise, that the Essex Design Guide which we have referred to throughout has been replaced by Rochford own Design Guide. When we consider the reduced staff levels with some unqualified planning staff it leads us to believe that this design guide will be subject to much criticism. We hope the Government Inspector will take this into account.

Planning law requires that “Call for Sites” which falls part of the development plan in accordance with the Regulations Governing Neighbourhood Planning Laws- NPPF 6 - Plans and Strategies – Part 6, Chapter 1, clauses 109 to 113, allows for Neighbourhood Planning – Part 6, chapter 3, clauses 116 to 121., and gives the community the right to Consultation – Part 6, chapter 4, clause 122. We challenge RDC to approve our application for this Neighbourhood Planning Group and a Statutory Consultee status which will also be an asset to the Hullbridge Parish Council. No explanation is given for reasons why we are not allowed to have consultation to give us good reasons why the regulations are not being properly debated and a conclusion found. This attitude denies community skills and professions adequately proven over 9 years of hard work, not acknowledged.

The four principles that follow imply that the core strategy should be relevant, sustainable and ‘Fit for Purpose’ and become part of the NPPF and LDF:
• Positively prepared.
Our observation on the previous Local Plan that insufficient forward planning had been carried in accordance with the Core Strategy which should have been adhered to and we will not be surprised if the same ‘policy’ will prevail. We look forward to the Planning Inspector requesting a coordinated approach and consultation with the community representatives, as the present system is not fit for purpose.
• Justified.
In view of the aforesaid we do not believe there was any justification to allow more sites to be put forward without clear thinking on assessments being made in respect of the “existing Infrastructure”, and the use of Green Belt land being used instead of Brownfield land and the other issues stated in this document.
The Core Strategy, NPPF and LDF and Localism Act all express that Green Belt land should only be used as a last resort and only under exceptional circumstances, many issues which we have demonstrated have not been addressed sufficiently. Can RDC demonstrate why they are unable to adhere to the rules and regulations designed to safeguard the community.
According to the Localism Act 2011, we have demonstrated that transparency and consultation were lacking with the community. This has to be rectified and included within the proposed Local Plan.
• Effective
The conditions for the development of the 36 Hullbridge sites will not be satisfied for the reasons given above, therefore we consider a complete review of these possible proposed developments and the Core Strategy allows for the community to raise these issues and get into meaningful dialogue with RDC.
• Consistent with National Policy
National policy insists that all the policies stated should be transparent, proper consultation pursued in relations to all the development criteria. We do not believe that proper feasibility studies, risk analysis have been conducted in order to satisfy the requirements of the NPPF and LDF. Most subjects referred to in this presentation will imply reasons for withdrawal, in view of Government directives and regulations listed above.
The Localism Act 2011 Chapter 20. suggested meaningful dialogue with the HRA. Our residents asked what guarantees will be given to HRA that we will be listened to, not merely placing this document on RDC website to satisfy the Planning Inspector requirements. We require RDC Planning/Legal department to clarify.

Clauses 1.18 and 1.19 speaks of ‘community-led planning’ which is of interest to HRA but all our applications and requests for clarification are ignored. We have consistently placed great emphasis on ‘community cohesion’. Which makes for good public awareness. We can produce correspondence to the Parish Council for cohesion in respect to the whole community and help to remove the divisions which exist at present.

HRA have requested support from the Hullbridge Parish Council and indeed our rights should be upheld in accordance with the Localism Act..

Comment

Representation ID: 43694

Received: 22/09/2021

Respondent: Mrs Christine Jarrett

Number of people: 2

I have given up - having spent about 2 hours trying to work out/make sense of how to reply to your huge consultation.

I think this is one of the worst documents I have even seen put out for consultation. Perhaps that is the idea so people do not reply....

Comment

Representation ID: 43728

Received: 23/09/2021

Respondent: Mr K W Meeks

It is a shame that you have made the information available on line difficult to read, negotiate and understand even for those who are computer literate.

Comment

Representation ID: 43729

Received: 22/09/2021

Respondent: Mr Roger Gardner

As for filling your form in many people have given up as its to complicated. So how will you state it is a fair Consultation and you have reached every resident any way possible.

Comment

Representation ID: 43871

Received: 12/11/2021

Respondent: Rosemary Parmenter

- I found the consultation extremely complicated and confusing.

- The limited consultation with residents is discriminatory to those who are not 'on-line'. I find it very difficult to get information and ask that RDC engage with those of us who do not have emails.

Object

Representation ID: 44305

Received: 13/09/2021

Respondent: Mr Stephen Skinner

I am growing increasingly concerned at how Rochford District Council is concentrating its consultations more and more online. It seems that anyone unable to access information online, or respond online, is becoming regarded as an afterthought in the consultation process.

This marginalising of a section of the population without access to a computer, or without computer skills, is gradually edging them out of the [ENDS].