1.6

Object

Representation ID: 3953

Received: 12/11/2022

Respondent: Mr Mohammad Nouri

Legally compliant? No

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? No

some of your sites are not suitable for development including land on linthouse lane, you can find better location to do this development .

Object

Representation ID: 5265

Received: 21/12/2022

Respondent: Mr Brian Wyatt

Legally compliant? No

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? No

Limited notice was provided for the first face-to-face consultation event in Penkridge on 14 November 2022. This was the closest event to site 036c, land south of Stafford. Those who had written notification of the consultation period received correspondence on 15 November 2022, which was after the date of the Penkridge session. Although consultation events were included within the News Round Up, this is not delivered to all SSDC residents. Information on the website was hard to find.

6 weeks' consultation is not long enough, and coincides with the run-up-to Christmas, which is one of the busiest times of year for many. This is an inappropriate time for consultation.

No notifications were sent to the Parish Councils.

No times were publicised for the online Q & A events. These were not recorded for wider dissemination for reasons of GDPR compliance although only a pre-rehearsed presentation was delivered with no audience participation. The only way to ask a question was through the 'chat' functionality which does not constitute 'consultation' as there was no discussion, and no recognition that anything submitted in the chat would inform the Local Plan.

Responses to the questions did not demonstrate consultation but rather an inflexible attitude to the plan. Including rebuff to delaying the plan.

Site 036c was not previously included in the plan. The site is in productive pasture and arable land use and should not be considered as a 'Large Urban Extension', and residents were only made aware of it on 11 November 2022.

This is not a fair and proper interpretation of consultation as defined in law. SSDC have undertaken a tick-box exercise that probably meets their obligations but is not a reasonable, open approach to maximise participation. It has been unfairly and intentionally planned to limit the number of residents engagement and restrict their ability to participate effectively.

Stafford BC gave 10 days notice between announcing consultation and their first meeting. This meeting was recorded and published on the internet, including a Q & A paper, and completed before the Christmas period.

The plan should be delayed and re-consulted upon in a more open manner. The plan is 'blinkered' in delivering government housing targets by 2022 which are now rescinded. Site 036c should be deleted from the plan.