1.16

Object

Representation ID: 3964

Received: 12/11/2022

Respondent: Mr Mohammad Nouri

Legally compliant? No

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? No

I believe this does not sound at all and must stop .

Object

Representation ID: 4001

Received: 26/11/2022

Respondent: Mr Tom Higgins

Legally compliant? Yes

Sound? Yes

Duty to co-operate? Yes

If this plan is submitted to the Secretary of State in its current form & the Inspector agrees that the proposals are ‘sound,’ It would not matter whether the Council adopts the plan in full or not. For instance, what would happen if a future Planning Application to develop the Billy Buns Lane sites is refused? The developer would submit an Appeal & any Planning Inspector would surely overturn the refusal based on the earlier Publication Plan.

Object

Representation ID: 4126

Received: 20/12/2022

Respondent: Mrs H Dams

Legally compliant? No

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? Yes

Having attended the meeting where the local plan was accepted, despite objections from Councillors and Residents, I wish to put on record the fact that people local to the area have not been properly informed about these plans until it was a "fait accompli'
Documents online were difficult to understand due to their technical presentation and hard to make sense of. Accessing the councils website has proved difficult and it is only through the Facebook page and the Parish Council that I am aware of these plans, even though my house backs directly onto the proposed site at Langley Road.

Object

Representation ID: 5088

Received: 22/12/2022

Respondent: Mr Stephen Bull

Legally compliant? No

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? Not specified

The council has failed to properly and effectively engage with residents and failed the requirements of NPPF Paragraph 16 because:
The Review Magazine has been insufficiently delivered to Lower Penn since 2021.
Only 8 copies of the Review Magazine have been delivered to the Parish Council for over 400 homes.
The council's communication strategy has been passive and designed to bypass ordinary residents, and has particularly discriminated against elderly residents.
The website information has been difficult or very difficult to use, and the consultation portal has been very difficult to use.
The council has made arbitrary decisions concerning what was and was not considered to be a genuine objection.
The council has added evidence base documents to the website not in good time making it very difficult for residents to keep track of the process and have knowledge of last-minute updates before consultation deadlines.