Core Strategy Submission Document: Schedule of minor amendments (2011)

My attached 'response pages', questions are asked because the proposals made are not clearly understood or explained, for example pages 21, 49 and 50 relating to the accommodation for Gypsies & Travellers, which also has caused confusion relating to the calculations made for justifying the number of sites over the state periods and also the 'justification' which needs explanation.
Pages 18,87 and 91 refer to the Health facilities, but no explanation is given to the fact that the PCT are to be abolished but no indication of it's replacement - I would prefer that the Core Strategy Document embrace every eventuality particularly the important services affecting the Health Service.
Pages 38, 46,,63,69,72, 86,101, 111, 112 & 124 refer to services' separated into 'short', 'medium 'and long terms, but no time or the terms are not indicated to allow some basic judgement by the community..
Page 90 item 9.13 - Schools. No more works to schools will be carried out - my thoughts are that that this is unwise and gives the impression that not enough thought was given to this changed policy, it wiklll affect the local Authorities forward planning budgets, associated services and the affect on the building fabric through deterioration. Many more items are stated on the attached pages, hopefully these can be observed.
Page 23 item 1.29. Affordable Housing. 80% of local market rent may not be affordable by the basic wage earners. The better option may be to set a 'maximum' development cost by allowing the Developers to provide alternative swift and alternative materials to drive down the average unit cost. This is not described to give a 'comfort' zone to the Community that every avenue has been considered.

Note only: There is no mention of the impact that the impending 'Localism Bill' will have on all questions related to development and other crucial 'regulations'. Would it be preferable to delay the presentation to allow the debate to be arranged for public consultation.
Page 97. Item 9.45. The question I put to you is: if green belt not affected why allow erosion of the green belt for house development without discussing the use of available 'brown field' land.
Page 105 Item 10.13 and 'after 10.13' - the Time factor has not been given for design and implementation of the transport Strategy.
Page 117 Item 11.22. Airport master Plan (2005) indicates a runway length of 1610m. I believe that negotiations between the two local Authorities and other parties resulted in agreement to increase the length of the runway to accommodate wide and long bodied aircraft - this is not mentioned.
Page 132 Item H1. Homes Development - are the deleted items incorporated elsewhere, if important how will this affect future development plans being considered by the local Authorities in 'forward planning'
Pages 133 to 135 & 137 - items H2 to H4, H6 & 7. Council record Planning permission Granted etc. Are travellers sites etc.' considered or are they separated, not indicated. Site and interpretation of the 'Single data List' is of interest but is not given in this document. Do nut understand the term given - 'Lifetime Homes Standard and no references provided to peruse.
Page 140 item GB1. Allocation Development Plan etc.- there is no mention of using 'brownfield' land
Page 143 Item ENV3. The reasons or apologies not given for Planning Applications being allowed contrary to Environment Agency advice on Flood Risk/ water quality.
Page 150 item CLT4. Council use of 'Developers contributions' to provide Health care etc. Did the panel discuss or debate that the 'contributions' received would undoubtedly be reflected in the development costs thereby pushing up the eventual sale price or indeed 'rental' cost.
Page 153 item CLT9. Is the 'policy ' of not maintaining or enhancement of the Rayleigh leisure center afacilities acceptable - this is not explained. The provision of Leisure facilities- may- be monitored - this is the wrong word perhaps.

Pages 155, 158 to 160, 164 & 165. There are referencing errors between the Main & Amendment documents however, there could well be some more which I did not have enough time to check.

Page 155 & 157. Items T1 & T6. Enhancement of cycle ways and footpaths - The annual 'targets' not mentioned.
Page 156 item T3. Proportion of development- a priority list not given ie. Hospitals, firestations, police stations etc.
Page 159 Item ED1. Employment levels in the District used as and indication of 'success'. What measures apply if 'unsuccessful' - this is not explained.