1.12
Comment
Publication Plan November 2022
Representation ID: 3960
Received: 12/11/2022
Respondent: Mr Mohammad Nouri
it seems you followed wrong direction on some of your assessments including the land on linthouse lane
Object
Publication Plan November 2022
Representation ID: 4214
Received: 21/12/2022
Respondent: Lower Penn Parish Council
Legally compliant? Not specified
Sound? No
Duty to co-operate? Not specified
Public consultation on the plan has not been inclusive or accessible. Residents who are not computer literate have been excluded from the plan process. Barely any copies of the quarterly magazine with the 2021 consultation were received. Online sessions have been wholly unenlightening due to format. The 2021 consultation only achieved a 3.5% response rate. The references to external documents and technical terminology in the plan are not easily understood. Online consultation system was overly complex and Site 582 was rarely, if at all, referenced by Parish name.
Object
Publication Plan November 2022
Representation ID: 5071
Received: 20/12/2022
Respondent: Goldfinch TPS
Agent: Goldfinch TPS
Legally compliant? No
Sound? No
Duty to co-operate? No
Substantial failings taken in the approach to public consultation and engagement with key stakeholders. Withholding vitally important and key pieces of information (e.g. representation previously received 12 months ago by the LPA to the Autumn 2021 Preferred Options Stage Report public consultation) from the public domain, placing members of the public, community pressure groups, local businesses, rural landowners, Duty to Co-operate partners, and other key stakeholders at a considerable disadvantage when trying to respond to this latest November 2022 Publication Stage Report consultation.
Planning Policy webpage insufficiently clear. Impossible to locate Publication Stage Report (Regulation 19) (November 2022) public consultation document on the Council’s webpage.
It is near on impossible to locate the South Staffordshire District Council’s Publication Stage Report (November 2022) public consultation document on the Council’s Planning Policy webpage. In order to achieve effective public consultation, the document should be clearly viewable on the Council’s Planning Policy webpage. This is not the case.
The above issues will place local communities, the local South Staffordshire business community and other key stakeholders at a considerable disadvantage when trying to respond to the Plan.
Comment
Publication Plan November 2022
Representation ID: 5072
Received: 20/12/2022
Respondent: Goldfinch TPS
Agent: Goldfinch TPS
Consultation Portal (Opus Consult) Local Plan consultation
Have concerns in relation to the use of the Consultation Portal (Opus Consult) which is being used by the Council to support Local Plan preparation. The Local Plans Consultation Portal (Opus Consult) is unclear and highly confusing for members of the public, community pressure groups, local businesses and other key stakeholders. The Consultation Portal is not fit-for-purpose.
This creates a highly restrictive approach and forms a barrier to effective community engagement. These types of public consultation portals, which are both highly ineffective and unnecessarily complex, are not effective ways for Local Planning Authorities (LPA’s) to consult local communities for Local Plan Reviews.
Object
Publication Plan November 2022
Representation ID: 5073
Received: 20/12/2022
Respondent: Goldfinch TPS
Agent: Goldfinch TPS
Legally compliant? No
Sound? No
Duty to co-operate? No
Local communities, Duty-to-co-operate contacts and other key stakeholders have been fully obstructed by the LPA from viewing the earlier Representations made by respondents to the Autumn 2021 Preferred Options Stage Report earlier public consultation stage, which closed 12 months ago on the 13th December 2021.
The Council has failed to place the Representations received to the earlier Autumn 2021 public consultation stage for the Preferred Options Stage Report (November 2021) Local Plan consultation which closed on the 13th December 2021 within the public domain. This is not a proper, fair and reasonable way for a Local Planning Authority to conduct a Local Plan Review, and is in direct conflict with the approach expected by paragraph 16 (indent c) of the Revised NPPF (2021).
This highly obstructive approach taken towards Local Plan preparation (by fully withholding key pieces of information from the public domain over an extended 12 month period – e.g. fully withholding all of the Preferred Options Report (November 2021) Representations from the public domain during the last 12 months) has placed Duty-to-co-operate partners and the other key stakeholders referred to above at a considerable disadvantage when trying to respond to this latest Autumn 2022 Regulation 19 public consultation stage.
This underlines the ongoing failure and continued incompetence of the Council in relation to its approach taken towards Local Plan-preparation and its failure to sufficiently involve key stakeholder in the Local Plan making process.
As a planning consultancy and key stakeholder, we strongly object to the way that we have been obstructed and totally excluded from the Local Plan making process by the Council, by not being able to view the earlier Representations made to the earlier Preferred Options Stage Report (November 2021) public consultation
Object
Publication Plan November 2022
Representation ID: 5074
Received: 20/12/2022
Respondent: Goldfinch TPS
Agent: Goldfinch TPS
Legally compliant? No
Sound? No
Duty to co-operate? No
The Publication Stage Report (Regulation 19) public consultation stage is being undertaken on the run up to the Christmas holiday period and during the middle of a December 2022 UK wide postal strike
We are surprised that the Council’ has decided to undertake this critically important public consultation stage over the Christmas holiday period. The public consultation stage closes on the 23rd December 2022 just one day away from Christmas day. Running a critically important Local Plan consultation over the Christmas holiday period will have a damaging impact on key stakeholder engagement and will have a detrimental effect on public participation rates.
The public consultation stage is also taking place during the middle of a UK wide postal strike.
Object
Publication Plan November 2022
Representation ID: 5443
Received: 13/12/2022
Respondent: Mr and Mrs R &A Faulkner
Legally compliant? Not specified
Sound? Not specified
Duty to co-operate? Not specified
Poor consultation process, need for better consultation, documentation too complex, hard to reach groups excluded.
Object
Publication Plan November 2022
Representation ID: 5448
Received: 22/12/2022
Respondent: Dr Norman Gough
Legally compliant? Not specified
Sound? Not specified
Duty to co-operate? Not specified
Inadequate engagement and consultation.
Object
Publication Plan November 2022
Representation ID: 5461
Received: 22/12/2022
Respondent: Mr P Hudson
Legally compliant? Not specified
Sound? Not specified
Duty to co-operate? Not specified
Inadequate consultation processes
Object
Publication Plan November 2022
Representation ID: 5463
Received: 21/12/2022
Respondent: Mrs Carol Hurley
Legally compliant? Not specified
Sound? Not specified
Duty to co-operate? Not specified
Consultation methods partial and ineffective.
Object
Publication Plan November 2022
Representation ID: 5467
Received: 17/12/2022
Respondent: Mr Tom Knott
Legally compliant? Not specified
Sound? Not specified
Duty to co-operate? Not specified
Inadequate and discriminatory consultation. Insufficient detail for opinions to be reached.
Object
Publication Plan November 2022
Representation ID: 5469
Received: 20/12/2022
Respondent: Mrs Tania Law
Legally compliant? Not specified
Sound? Not specified
Duty to co-operate? Not specified
Poor communication of plan proposals, there has been inadequate consultation.
Object
Publication Plan November 2022
Representation ID: 5472
Received: 18/12/2022
Respondent: Mr Rob Leigh
Legally compliant? Not specified
Sound? Not specified
Duty to co-operate? Not specified
The consultation process and public engagement has been a farrago. The process has been typified by technical failures with zoom meetings, poor quality email communications and little consideration for those with sight issues.
Object
Publication Plan November 2022
Representation ID: 5473
Received: 22/12/2022
Respondent: Michael and Hannah Lewis
Legally compliant? Not specified
Sound? Not specified
Duty to co-operate? Not specified
Poor consultation process. Pool House and Orton Lane removed from Green Belt with little consultation.
Change terminology from ‘Local Plan’ to ‘Proposed land to be used for building’ to provide better clarity on document purpose.’
Object
Publication Plan November 2022
Representation ID: 5476
Received: 22/12/2022
Respondent: Mr John Marsh
Legally compliant? Not specified
Sound? Not specified
Duty to co-operate? Not specified
The process is skewed against local working residents without the time or resources to engage fully.
The process in undemocratic with no account taken of the views of locally elected officials or local residents.
Object
Publication Plan November 2022
Representation ID: 5484
Received: 22/12/2022
Respondent: Rev R Readshaw
Legally compliant? Not specified
Sound? Not specified
Duty to co-operate? Not specified
Poor communication of plan proposals.
Object
Publication Plan November 2022
Representation ID: 5488
Received: 23/12/2022
Respondent: Mrs J Stroud
Legally compliant? Not specified
Sound? Not specified
Duty to co-operate? Not specified
Digital communication bypasses a large section of the community. Accessing and commenting on the Local Plan on-line is complex.
Object
Publication Plan November 2022
Representation ID: 5492
Received: 21/12/2022
Respondent: Ms Carolyn Tranter
Legally compliant? Not specified
Sound? Not specified
Duty to co-operate? Not specified
Poorly communicated proposals, not positively prepared.
Object
Publication Plan November 2022
Representation ID: 5496
Received: 22/12/2022
Respondent: Mrs Laura Smith
Legally compliant? No
Sound? No
Duty to co-operate? No
Consultation process is difficult, inaccessible and inadequate.
Object
Publication Plan November 2022
Representation ID: 5502
Received: 23/12/2022
Respondent: Ms J Walton
Legally compliant? Not specified
Sound? Not specified
Duty to co-operate? Not specified
Inadequate consultation process.
Object
Publication Plan November 2022
Representation ID: 5504
Received: 23/12/2022
Respondent: Mr Nick Walton
Legally compliant? Not specified
Sound? Not specified
Duty to co-operate? Not specified
Inadequate consultation process.
Object
Publication Plan November 2022
Representation ID: 5506
Received: 19/12/2022
Respondent: David Webb
Legally compliant? Not specified
Sound? Not specified
Duty to co-operate? Not specified
Inadequate consultation and communication