Your Views

Showing comments and forms 1 to 30 of 91

Object

North East Derbyshire Publication Draft Local Plan (Reg 19)

Representation ID: 6789

Received: 05/03/2018

Respondent: Dronfield Green Belt Resident's Group

Representation:

Community Involvement Strategy SCI Leaflet 1 states NEDDC will "Be Inclusive by providing information in an accessible format" "Be transparent and objective ...presenting all relevant facts about development proposals.

No whole district paper communications received / seen giving notification of Publication Draft Plan 2018 availability for Final Public Consultation (as of 4.3.18). This leaves those without internet access / who didn't respond to previous drafts disadvantaged / excluded.
Spoken with several Coal Aston residents 4.3.18, who made representations in 2017. All unaware of Greenbelt in Coal Aston or Dronfield still being earmarked for hundreds of houses. Plan not legally compliant

Change suggested by respondent:

Suspend Consultation period until widespread, clear, transparent on and off-line publicity released. Consider access for disabled, partially sited people. Publicity should contain a simple summary table listing all of district's site locations and housing allocations, denoting which sites are Green Belt / Brownfield. I have further consultation concerns to be described in other representations. Once all issues resolved, enter into a full 6 week consultation period again.

Full text:

Community Involvement Strategy SCI Leaflet 1 states NEDDC will "Be Inclusive by providing information in an accessible format" "Be transparent and objective ...presenting all relevant facts about development proposals.

No whole district paper communications received / seen giving notification of Publication Draft Plan 2018 availability for Final Public Consultation (as of 4.3.18). This leaves those without internet access / who didn't respond to previous drafts disadvantaged / excluded.
Spoken with several Coal Aston residents 4.3.18, who made representations in 2017. All unaware of Greenbelt in Coal Aston or Dronfield still being earmarked for hundreds of houses. Plan not legally compliant

Object

North East Derbyshire Publication Draft Local Plan (Reg 19)

Representation ID: 6791

Received: 06/03/2018

Respondent: Emma Thompson

Representation:

- Clear/plain English not used in the local plan, making it inaccessible to
some members of the public.
- Lack of help and guidance for residents to respond in a full, relevant
way to the local plan.
- Consultation process is undemocratic because of the above points.

Change suggested by respondent:

The local plan, and all other documents intended for public consumption as
part of the consultation process, should have been approved using the
Crystal Clear English process, or another similar 'plain English'
assessment, to make them accessible to as many members of the public as
possible.

Full text:

The plan document is too complex, poorly structured, not indexed and too
full of planning jargon and acronyms for a layman to fully understand. In
this way, the plan has made itself inaccessible to a large proportion of
the public, many of whom are not used to reading and responding to such
verbose documents.
North East Derbyshire Distric Council are a member of the Crystal Clear
English campaign and yet the plan and the guidance leaflet have not been
approved as 'crystal clear'. This is contra to the Council's Statement of
Community Involvement which says that plain English will be used.
Coupled with the sheer volume of the document, the complex language made it
difficult for the average member of the public to understand, thereby
removing the opportunity for many people to have their say during the
consultation. There was also very limited time and opportunity at the open
day at Dronfield Civic Centre for local residents to be helped through the
process of making a comprehensive and relevant response to the local plan.
All of the above points to a consultation process lacking in a democratic
and inclusive ethos.

Object

North East Derbyshire Publication Draft Local Plan (Reg 19)

Representation ID: 6801

Received: 02/03/2018

Respondent: Mr Michael & Jill Lee

Number of people: 2

Representation:

Within one of too many costly NEDDC supporting documents to the Local Plan - the "Local Development Scheme" we noted the following:

Section 2.2 While the existing North East Derbyshire Local Plan is generally in line with current national guidelines, there have been key elements of government guidance that are not reflected in this document."

By your own admission, NEDDC is determined to drive this scheme through while admitting, in writing, the local plan is not compliant with national guidelines.
The above is one of the four tests of soundness mentioned in the guidance leaflet.
1) You actually state that your local plan fails to meet all Government legal requirements, therefore it fails to be legally compliant,
2) Having failed to meet Govt requirements the plan should also be considered unsound,
3) Clearly, NEDDC have failed to comply with their duty to co-operate with Govt demands.

Change suggested by respondent:


It is quite obvious.

(Refer to Question3) By your own admission NEDDC fails to comply with the Government's legal requirements regarding the local plan, stating:

a) Failure to be legally compliant;
b) Unsound;
c) Taking the previous points into account, NEDDC has also failed to co operate with the Government's legal requirements.

It should, therefore, be scrapped, before any further ratepayers' money is wasted.

Full text:

Within one of too many costly NEDDC supporting documents to the Local Plan - the "Local Development Scheme" we noted the following:

Section 2.2 While the existing North East Derbyshire Local Plan is generally in line with current national guidelines, there have been key elements of government guidance that are not reflected in this document."

By your own admission, NEDDC is determined to drive this scheme through while admitting, in writing, the local plan is not compliant with national guidelines.
The above is one of the four tests of soundness mentioned in the guidance leaflet.
1) You actually state that your local plan fails to meet all Government legal requirements, therefore it fails to be legally compliant,
2) Having failed to meet Govt requirements the plan should also be considered unsound,
3) Clearly, NEDDC have failed to comply with their duty to co-operate with Govt demands.

Object

North East Derbyshire Publication Draft Local Plan (Reg 19)

Representation ID: 6810

Received: 12/03/2018

Respondent: Mr Michael & Jill Lee

Number of people: 2

Representation:

Council officers have amended the summary to approximately 100 words. Full representation attached.

Para 4.68 references detailed evidence (GB Topic Paper, January 2018) setting out exceptional circumstances justifying GB release.

The above statement mentions a document which has not been made publicly available. This is shameful as the consultation period is close to the end, especially as:

The plan must demonstrate exceptional circumstances to justify allocating 1275 houses on Greenbelt in northern district.
Report to cabinet (14.2.18) 46% of all representations on Feb 2017 draft related to Greenbelt.

By blocking relevant information which should be disclosed NEDDC impedes the public making objections regarding GB development. Therefore the present consultation is invalid without this document. The consultation, being prejudiced against the public fails to be legally compliant, is non co-operative and unsound.

Change suggested by respondent:

This Consultation should be suspended. NEDDC planning dept staff and Councillors should be reprimanded for non co-operation.
The aforementioned Greenbelt Topic Paper and ALL evidence based documents to be made publicly available online and on hard copies in district libraries and other public buildings and to all households in the districts affected regarding the:
"District's updated housing and growth plan" being available and out for final consultation. Access to be ensured for disabled, partially sighted people etc. Publicity should contain a simple summary table listing all of district's site locations and housing allocations. Denoting which sites are Greenbelt and which threatened.
Once all consultation process issues are resolved, restart consultation with added weeks to compensate for the considerable waste of time. With regard to the waste of ratepayers' money Councillors and planning staff should be made to find adequate solutions for recompense without further cost to the ratepaying public.

Full text:

4.68 "Detailed evidence setting out the exceptional circumstances justifying the release of Green Belt land is set out in the Green Belt Topic Paper (January 2018)."
The above statement mentions a document, the Green Belt Topic paper which we are unable to locate and which has not been made publicly available as we have checked online - the NEDDC website. Neither have we been able to find paper copies in local libraries.
This is shameful as the consultation period is close to the end of this current phase. Especially when taking the following into consideration:
 Key evidence document - plan must demonstrate exceptional circumstances to justify allocating 1275 houses on Greenbelt in northern district.
 Report to cabinet (14.2.18) 46% of all representations on Feb 2017 draft related to Greenbelt.
By blocking relevant information which should be disclosed NEDDC impedes the public making objections regarding green belt development. Therefore the present consultation is invalid without this document. The consultation, being prejudiced against the public fails to be legally compliant, is non co-operative and unsound.

Object

North East Derbyshire Publication Draft Local Plan (Reg 19)

Representation ID: 6817

Received: 07/03/2018

Respondent: Margaret Oliver

Representation:

I object to the proposed plan to build on green belt land.
Brownfield land is available.
Too much strain on existing services, schools, doctors and roads.

Change suggested by respondent:

Policy is not being followed as very difficult to object, no proper consultation and responses.

Full text:

I object to the proposed plan to build on green belt land.
Brownfield land is available.
Too much strain on existing services, schools, doctors and roads.

Attachments:

Object

North East Derbyshire Publication Draft Local Plan (Reg 19)

Representation ID: 6819

Received: 05/03/2018

Respondent: Deborah Etches

Representation:

Policy/paragraph identified by Council Officer.
The S.O.C.I says that you will use plain English.
You have failed in your duty as a statutory body to adhere to this by not using plain english and non jargonistic language making the document exclusive rather than inclusive

Change suggested by respondent:

The evidence for this is the way you have written documents that are intended to inform the general public. Documents shared on your website are complicated at best and at worst overwhelming and create further distress for those who cannot understand such complexities.
You have declined to meet with community groups since the first proposals to introduce this local plan.
There has been no community engagement from yourselves other than your instigated meeting in the civic centre offices. These were carefully managed to exclude large nos of people turning up to listen and discuss with planners due to the size of the rooms you identified would be sufficient to meet with the ratepayers of the areas affected.
As you had obviously identified there would be large numbers as there was a council officer on the door limiting the no of people entering using a number counter am unsure why this venue was identified as sound.
You need to consult and communicate the plan in line with policy guidance about engagement with the public.
Question 5 (See page 4 of the Guidance Note

Full text:

The S.O.C.I says that you will use plain English.
You have failed in your duty as a statutory body to adhere to this by not using plain english and non jargonistic language making the document exclusive rather than inclusive

Attachments:

Object

North East Derbyshire Publication Draft Local Plan (Reg 19)

Representation ID: 6824

Received: 11/03/2018

Respondent: Mr Robert Barron

Representation:

4.68 "Detailed evidence setting out the exceptional circumstances justifying the release of Green Belt land is set out in the Green Belt Topic Paper (January 2018)."
Green Belt Topic paper not yet been publicly available on website or as paper copies in libraries, despite over 1/3 of present consultation period gone.
Key evidence document - plan must demonstrate exceptional circumstances to justify allocating 1275 houses on Greenbelt in northern district.
Report to cabinet (14.2.18) 46% of all representations on Feb 2017 draft related to Greenbelt.
Consultation prejudiced against making objections re Greenbelt development. Results of present consultation invalidated without this document.

Change suggested by respondent:

Suspend Consultation until Greenbelt Topic Paper and ALL evidence base documents made publicly available online and paper copies in district libraries.
Provide clear paper publicity posted to all households in district regards, "District's updated housing and growth plan" being available and out for final consultation. Consider access for disabled, partially sighted people. Publicity should contain a simple summary table listing all of district's site locations and housing allocations, denoting which sites are Greenbelt. Once all consultation process issues resolved, restart consultation with added weeks to compensate for 2 weeks or likely more already gone without adequate access to information.

Full text:

4.68 "Detailed evidence setting out the exceptional circumstances justifying the release of Green Belt land is set out in the Green Belt Topic Paper (January 2018)."
Green Belt Topic paper not yet been publicly available on website or as paper copies in libraries, despite over 1/3 of present consultation period gone.
Key evidence document - plan must demonstrate exceptional circumstances to justify allocating 1275 houses on Greenbelt in northern district.
Report to cabinet (14.2.18) 46% of all representations on Feb 2017 draft related to Greenbelt.
Consultation prejudiced against making objections re Greenbelt development. Results of present consultation invalidated without this document.

Attachments:

Object

North East Derbyshire Publication Draft Local Plan (Reg 19)

Representation ID: 6825

Received: 11/03/2018

Respondent: Mrs Lindsay Barron

Representation:

4.68 "Detailed evidence setting out the exceptional circumstances justifying the release of Green Belt land is set out in the Green Belt Topic Paper (January 2018)."
Green Belt Topic paper not yet been publicly available on website or as paper copies in libraries, despite over 1/3 of present consultation period gone.
Key evidence document - plan must demonstrate exceptional circumstances to justify allocating 1275 houses on Greenbelt in northern district.
Report to cabinet (14.2.18) 46% of all representations on Feb 2017 draft related to Greenbelt.
Consultation prejudiced against making objections re Greenbelt development. Results of present consultation invalidated without this document.

Change suggested by respondent:

Suspend Consultation until Greenbelt Topic Paper and ALL evidence base documents made publicly available online and paper copies in district libraries.
Provide clear paper publicity posted to all households in district regards, "District's updated housing and growth plan" being available and out for final consultation. Consider access for disabled, partially sighted people. Publicity should contain a simple summary table listing all of district's site locations and housing allocations, denoting which sites are Greenbelt. Once all consultation process issues resolved, restart consultation with added weeks to compensate for 2 weeks or likely more already gone without adequate access to information.

Full text:

4.68 "Detailed evidence setting out the exceptional circumstances justifying the release of Green Belt land is set out in the Green Belt Topic Paper (January 2018)."
Green Belt Topic paper not yet been publicly available on website or as paper copies in libraries, despite over 1/3 of present consultation period gone.
Key evidence document - plan must demonstrate exceptional circumstances to justify allocating 1275 houses on Greenbelt in northern district.
Report to cabinet (14.2.18) 46% of all representations on Feb 2017 draft related to Greenbelt.
Consultation prejudiced against making objections re Greenbelt development. Results of present consultation invalidated without this document.

Attachments:

Object

North East Derbyshire Publication Draft Local Plan (Reg 19)

Representation ID: 6836

Received: 07/03/2018

Respondent: Holymoorside & Walton Parish Council

Representation:

Representation not received on representation form; Council officer has made interpretation.

The Local Plan should reflect the views of residents as outlined in the Holymoorside and Walton Neighbourhood Plan.

The Consultation process is not satisfactory because: there was no advanced warning of the consultation, no co-production of the event and no documentation provided to the Parish Council to publicise the consultation around the parish, and the timing encompasses the Easter holidays.

NEDDC have failed to keep the Parish Council informed of the production of the Local Plan, these new consultation documents appear to be rushed out and give a representation of perceived panic at NEDDC's lack at the production of a Plan.

Change suggested by respondent:

Not indicated

Full text:

Thank you for your e-mail dated 21st February 2018 titled North East Derbyshire Local Plan: Publication Draft. This was considered by the parish council at their meeting last night. Following detailed discussion the parish council makes the following comments;

1 the parish council requests that the Local Plan reflects the views of the residents as outlined in our recent Neighbourhood Plan, which successfully went to referendum in November 2017
2 the parish council does not believe that this consultation process is satisfactory for the following reasons;
* the introductory e-mail is dated on the start of the six week consultation process, with no advance warning provided. As parish councils generally meet monthly this drastically cuts down the amount of time we have to respond
* there has been no co-production of this event, no documentation provided for the council to publicise the consultation around the parish. Not everyone has access to the internet or can get to the local library. The parish council are the grass roots tier of local government and are ideally placed to make this consultation process more accessible to residents
* the timing of the consultation process is flawed as it encompasses the Easter holidays when many people are on holiday
3 the parish council agreed that NEDDC have failed to keep them fully informed of the whole process of the production of the Local Plan, these new consultation documents appear to be rushed out and give a representation of perceived panic at NEDDC's lack at the production of a Plan.

A further email confirms that the parish council objects to the local plan.

Object

North East Derbyshire Publication Draft Local Plan (Reg 19)

Representation ID: 6860

Received: 18/03/2018

Respondent: Mr Andrew Scott

Representation:

plans to build 230 houses in area DR1 on green field land are completely UNSOUND, logistically and environmentally and morally when BROWN FIELD alternative sites have not be sufficiently explored. WHY HAS THIS SITUATION NOT BEEN PROPERALLY EXPRESSED IN THE COUNCILS PLANNING PROCESS??

Change suggested by respondent:

stop proposals to build on greenfield DR1, use brown field alternatives

Full text:

plans to build 230 houses in area DR1 on green field land are completely UNSOUND, logistically and environmentally and morally when BROWN FIELD alternative sites have not be sufficiently explored. WHY HAS THIS SITUATION NOT BEEN PROPERALLY EXPRESSED IN THE COUNCILS PLANNING PROCESS?? when you say 'Green field should not be sancrosanct' this can only be said after all other alternatives have been exhausted...well they have nt clearly, so WHY NOT?? what is important to the council if not protecting Green field sites for future generations?? so this is the situation...1. Dronfield has historically been grossly over developed for decades, only a small market town with narrow streets and very limited potential for infastruture development. how can such numbers of additional houses even be considered? Numerous alternative sites are avaialable in the area, brown field sita should be prioritised, or the site where hundreds of luxury holiday chalets are being built on the other side of unstone, this could have provided space for all the housing needs, WITHOUT TOUCHING GREEN FIELD !!!.2. Numerous HGV s already trundle through our narrow historic streets, and you propose to add to this development? where is the sympathy to the type of town Dronfield is ??
3. I you build on green belt here on Dr1 you will effectively connect Dronfield to Unstone, forming a gross urban conurbation running from Sheffield through to Chesterfield, with not space, no nature and no greenery between these towns. What an awful development to consider, taking away the last shred of nature and space between these towns will have a huge a lasting negative effect on all the people of this area that will last for generations to coECT IN THE STRONGEST TERMS TO THIS PROPOSAL

Object

North East Derbyshire Publication Draft Local Plan (Reg 19)

Representation ID: 6890

Received: 19/03/2018

Respondent: Mr Michael & Jill Lee

Number of people: 2

Representation:

Council officers have amended the summary to approximately 100 words. Full representation attached.

The process is so fragmented that non-planning staff will find it difficult to locate specific documents/information on this area. Councillors and planning dept are completely disinterested in the public and their interests.

The Plan is not in line with the Council's SCI.

The document and the whole attitude of Councillors and staff is unsound, the whole process is flawed, thereby it fails to be all of the following:
i. Positively prepared - the points above prove there is nothing positive about this process;
ii. Justified - difficulties locating information. Behaviour and intransigency of Councillors/Council compounds the issues;
iii. Effective - totally ineffective, damaging and inappropriate;
iv. Consistent with national policy - failure again, totally ignoring the Govt National Framework document
v. Unsound - it manages this quite effectively. Smoke, mirrors and hidden information.

Change suggested by respondent:

Instead of making an already difficult process more complicated for anyone who doesn't live and breathe NEDDCs Local Plan 'library' of timewasting documents, a cohesive, indexed, user-friendly system should be put in place. In other words - a professional system. No profit-making company would continue with such inefficiency. It is no wonder the county is in the state that it is currently in.
We wonder just how much time and money is wasted by staff trying to locate relevant information? Perhaps a subject for a FOI request.
Councillors who recognise they are simply 'local' government and not National Government. Who realise they also have a duty to residents/rate and taxpayers, recognising they should not take the easy way out by snatching green belt land. Look at second homes, derelict land and property.
A complete lack of transparency and lack of democracy should be dealt with officially. Arrogant attitudes and complacency disallowed.

Full text:

The fact that so much information regarding the Local Plan is scattered, each area having multiple documents totalling a huge amount of computer memory. The whole process is so fragmented that non-planning staff will find it difficult to locate specific documents/information on this area. One wonders whether this is deliberate?

NEDDC with its huge IT server is fine but for a member of the public with an average pc/laptop the whole process is made all but impossible. Most residents also have to hold down a job and don't have time to spend all day attempting to trawl through the labyrinth of, often useless information which masks the relevant information. In fact it is frightening to recognise the amount of time and money that has been wasted on this biased and discriminatory project.

NEDDC's own Community Involvement Strategy SCI Leaflet 1 states NEDDC will
"Be Inclusive by providing information in an accessible format" 
"Be transparent and objective ...presenting all relevant facts about development proposals.

Whoever worded the above obviously thought the whole Local Plan is nothing but a joke. Let us tell you, there is nothing amusing about loss of green belt land and irredeemable damage to the already built-up overloaded town that is Dronfield.

The fact that the public were not allowed to speak at the last 'Cabinet' meeting. Councillors and planning dept are completely disinterested in the ratepaying public and their interests.

When I emailed all Councillors prior to the meeting, apart from an out of office automatic reply from the majority only two actually replied:
1) To tell me that she had resigned - Jane Austen
2) Demanded an apology - Mihaley.

Not only the document but the whole attitude of Councillors and staff is unsound, the whole process flawed, thereby it fails to be all of the following:
i. Positively prepared - the points above prove there is nothing positive about this process;
ii. Justified - difficulties locating information. Behaviour and intransigency of Councillors/Council compounds the issues;
iii. Effective - totally ineffective, damaging and inappropriate;
iv. Consistent with national policy - failure again, totally ignoring the Govt National Framework document
v. Unsound - it manages this quite effectively. Smoke, mirrors and hidden information.

Object

North East Derbyshire Publication Draft Local Plan (Reg 19)

Representation ID: 6895

Received: 17/03/2018

Respondent: Sandra Barnes

Representation:

I do not support this part of the local plan. The council have not made their plans clear enough for a lay person to understand. I find it very difficult to navigate the web site and do not understand all the wording used. At the few chances to meet the councillors at open meetings I found it impossible to make my objections heard, they simply did not want to listen to any objections. They seem to be riding roughshod over anyone who does not agree with them.

Change suggested by respondent:

I believe the council have not legally given the local people a chance to voice their objections. They have not appreciated how valuable the Green belt around Dronfield is. They will not recognise that there is an area of Brownfield that would be easy to developed for housing. The area cannot sustain a large development without increasing the facilities but this has not been acknowledged. They have totally ignored a 4,000 plus petition which showed the strength of feeling in the area. The council have just not included us in their planning.

Full text:

I do not support this part of the local plan. The council have not made their plans clear enough for a lay person to understand. I find it very difficult to navigate the web site and do not understand all the wording used. At the few chances to meet the councillors at open meetings I found it impossible to make my objections heard, they simply did not want to listen to any objections. They seem to be riding roughshod over anyone who does not agree with them.

Attachments:

Object

North East Derbyshire Publication Draft Local Plan (Reg 19)

Representation ID: 6903

Received: 20/03/2018

Respondent: Julie Price

Representation:

Point 1.41 The Consultation Process
Paragraph identified by Council officer.
-Consultation documents are hard to find (no paper copies in library, Council offices, 1 stop shop) and not in simple English.
-Only 1 copy of guidance notes available in library - reference only.
-4000 petition signatures have not been debated.
-Face to face debate with community groups has been denied.
-Alternatives to building on Green Belt have been ignored.

Change suggested by respondent:

More time was requested for consultation was requested - this hasn't happened.

Full text:

Consultation documents are hard to find (no paper copies in library, Council offices, 1 stop shop) and not in simple English.
Only 1 copy of guidance notes available in library - reference only.
4000 petition signatures have not been debated.
Face to face debate with community groups has been denied.
Alternatives to building on Green Belt have been ignored.

Attachments:

Object

North East Derbyshire Publication Draft Local Plan (Reg 19)

Representation ID: 6904

Received: 20/03/2018

Respondent: Reverend Ian Price

Representation:

Point 1.41 The Consultation Process
Paragraph identified by Council officer.
-Difficult to find documents.
-Documents not in simple English.
-Guidance Notes: only 1 copy available in library and it's for reference.
-4000 petition signatures not debated.
-Face-to-face debate with community groups denied.
-Alternatives to Greenbelt use ignored.

Change suggested by respondent:

More time requested for consultation. Hasn't happened.

Full text:

Difficult to find documents.
Documents not in simple English.
Guidance Notes: only 1 copy available in library and it's for reference.
4000 petition signatures not debated.
Face-to-face debate with community groups denied.
Alternatives to Greenbelt use ignored.

Attachments:

Object

North East Derbyshire Publication Draft Local Plan (Reg 19)

Representation ID: 6924

Received: 22/03/2018

Respondent: Margaret Harrison

Representation:

Point 1.41 Your Views
1) I object to building of any kind on Greenbelt land in and around Dronfield
2) Brownfield land is readily available
3) No infrastructure in place, will be too much of a strain on existing facilities i.e. schools, doctors, roads

Change suggested by respondent:

I would like to see a user friendly format on-line and proper consultation and responses.
Policy is not being followed.

Full text:

1) I object to building of any kind on Greenbelt land in and around Dronfield
2) Brownfield land is readily available
3) No infrastructure in place, will be too much of a strain on existing facilities i.e. schools, doctors, roads

Attachments:

Object

North East Derbyshire Publication Draft Local Plan (Reg 19)

Representation ID: 6928

Received: 22/03/2018

Respondent: Dronfield Green Belt Resident's Group

Representation:

Green Belt Topic paper (GBTP) and Duty to Cooperate Compliance statement made publicly available today 22.3.18. Final habitats regulation assessment still awaited.
Consultation extended but only representations relating to these late documents permissible after original 4.4.18 deadline. This is another confusing deterrent to making representations.
Those without email not yet notified of this by post. Plan is complex - differing themes relating to soundness and legal compliance intrinsically linked. Piecemeal nature of consultation risks representations losing context. Non-technical summary of GBTP with simpler English welcomed, but such summaries been lacking in previous consultations and still lacking in other documents.

Change suggested by respondent:

Accept representations on all parts of the Publication Draft Local Plan and all evidence base documents until new deadline of Thurs 3rd May 2018. Provide clearer "front page" publicity of this consultation on housing and employment growth plans to all households in District immediately. Avoid "Local Plan" term as that is jargon in itself. Make paper copies of new documents available in libraries. This would mitigate for what has been very poor consultation to date that has not complied with the Statement of Community Involvement.

Full text:

Green Belt Topic paper (GBTP) and Duty to Cooperate Compliance statement made publicly available today 22.3.18. Final habitats regulation assessment still awaited.
Consultation extended but only representations relating to these late documents permissible after original 4.4.18 deadline. This is another confusing deterrent to making representations.
Those without email not yet notified of this by post. Plan is complex - differing themes relating to soundness and legal compliance intrinsically linked. Piecemeal nature of consultation risks representations losing context. Non-technical summary of GBTP with simpler English welcomed, but such summaries been lacking in previous consultations and still lacking in other documents.

Object

North East Derbyshire Publication Draft Local Plan (Reg 19)

Representation ID: 6947

Received: 22/03/2018

Respondent: Mr Andrew Goodwin

Representation:

I feel the whole consultation process has been poor on the following grounds:
* Council plans too long, too much planning language, council forms too complex.
* Council not informed me about updated housing plans.
* Disappointed that Council refused to let us speak and wouldn't debate Dronfield Greenbelt's 4000+ signature petition at a Council meeting. Petition registered as just 1 objection.
* Disappointed that senior Councillors leading the plan refused to meet with members of Dronfield Green Belt last year to discuss housing plans and haven't replied to emails.

Change suggested by respondent:

The Council have not followed their Statement of Community Involvement and this means the plan is not "legally compliant".
To change this the Council need to follow the inspectorates' high standards and make the plan accessible to all.
The following needs to change
* Keep the process simple by writing in plain English and explain any planning terms that the Council use.
* Communicate clearly explaining the reasons why the Council want to involve the Community and receive our comments.
* Make it easy for members of the community to get involved by setting out when and where we can provide our comments. For the Council to always plan public events so they are accessible to all people and groups and use existing community involvement networks.
* Be inclusive by providing information in an accessible format and giving clear advice on how the planning system works, and encourage involvement from those groups that are not usually involved in the planning process.
* Be transparent and objective through the consideration of reasonable policy options for the Local Plan and presenting all relevant facts about development proposals.
* Share information with the community using the Council's website, in Derbyshire County Council libraries and in the Council's Head Office whenever this is appropriate and effective.
* Make easy to follow copies of Local Plan documents available to view at key locations throughout the District.
* Make sure the communities' involvement is effective by ensuring all comments received by the authority are recorded as individual objections, read carefully and changes' acted upon.
* meet targets for the preparation of the Local Plan, and also Government targets for the determination of applications within the statutory time frame.

Full text:

I feel the whole consultation process has been poor on the following grounds:
* Council plans too long, too much planning language, council forms too complex.
* Council not informed me about updated housing plans.
* Disappointed that Council refused to let us speak and wouldn't debate Dronfield Greenbelt's 4000+ signature petition at a Council meeting. Petition registered as just 1 objection.
* Disappointed that senior Councillors leading the plan refused to meet with members of Dronfield Green Belt last year to discuss housing plans and haven't replied to emails.

Object

North East Derbyshire Publication Draft Local Plan (Reg 19)

Representation ID: 6948

Received: 07/03/2018

Respondent: Mrs Jane Singleton

Representation:

Council officers have amended the summary to approximately 100 words. Full representation attached.

Rep refers to NPPF para 155. As a Committee Member of Dronfield Civic Society, I wish to inform the Planning Inspector that this duty of the Local Authority has not been carried out in respect of voluntary bodies like the Civic Society. At no time has the Civic Society been approached for its views, comments or suggestions regarding the Emerging Local Plan. As a Society, and through Civic Voice, the National Charity for the Civic Movement, we would be doing a disservice to our members, if we did not make attempts to take place in the planning process. Indeed we have made attempts to improve the Conservation Areas through liaison with the Local Authority but they 'never called us back.

This is a huge failing of requirement on engagement and early collaboration on the part of NEDDC.

Change suggested by respondent:

Evidence from voluntary bodies like the Civic Society demonstrates that this Council has excluded mechanisms for cross community participation with regard to the emerging Local Plan.

At the full Council meeting on the 5th March 2018, the audio tape confirms this sort of approach and behaviour towards others who sought to challenge or seek to debate, outside the Steering Group. Councillors involved in the production of the Local Plan were uncomfortable and defensive of a different perspective. They were using the threat of intervention from the Secretary of State as a reason to push on with it in spite of objections to it and a call for a halt to the process to revisit the strategy.

The approach is contrary to the NPPF and the Plan hasn't been positively prepared in respect of the early collaboration and engagement process. It has been a closed-shop approach and should be investigated further.

Full text:

NPPF Point 155.
Early and meaningful engagement and collaboration with neighbourhoods, local organisations and businesses is essential. A wide section of the community should be proactively engaged, so that Local Plans, as far as possible, reflect a collective vision and a set of agreed priorities for the
sustainable development of the area, including those contained in any neighbourhood plans that have been made."

As a Committee Member of Dronfield Civic Society, I wish to inform the Planning Inspector that this duty of the Local Authority has not been carried out in respect of voluntary bodies like the Civic Society. At no time has the Civic Society been approached for its views, comments or suggestions regarding the Emerging Local Plan. As a Society, and through Civic Voice, the National Charity for the Civic Movement, we would be doing a disservice to our members, if we did not make attempts to take place in the planning process. Indeed we have made attempts to improve the Conservation Areas through liaison with the Local Authority but they 'never called us back. Dronfield Civic Society is the only voluntary body in Dronfield with a planning remit within its constitution.

Rep refers to para 1.41
This is a huge failing of requirement on engagement and early collaboration on the part of NEDDC.
Through last year's consultation, Dronfield Civic Society submitted a considered and measured representation to NEDDC based on the collective views of the committee at that time under Chair John Harvey. We strongly objected to removal of land from the Green Belt. Our representation was wrongly recorded as a 'comment'

Attachments:

Object

North East Derbyshire Publication Draft Local Plan (Reg 19)

Representation ID: 6956

Received: 12/03/2018

Respondent: Mrs Jane Singleton

Representation:

Council Officers have amended the summary to approximately 100 words. Full representation attached.

Para 1.41
There is a good deal concern about how exclusive NEDDC has been with regard to the consultation process on the Publication Draft Local Plan. It is very much a case that they are unlikely to change anything in it, believing that it is 'sound'.

However because documents are missing from the evidence base to enable us to comment effectively and feedback forms are not readily available at venues where the Plan is available to read e.g. Dronfield Library, in addition to the forms being overly complicated, this all points to non-inclusive public participation. Those without internet access have been severely disadvantaged in this process.

Advice from the Planning Inspectorate includes a suggested template feedback form as below. NEDDC has an overly complicated form which includes double negatives within questions, designed to put people off.

Change suggested by respondent:

This part of the process needs further investigation. It is unlikely that the Plan is legally compliant, and it doesn't accurately represent the views of the people who commented. This consultation did not make enough effort to seek the views of those who wished to comment. The process, forms etc were too complicated for the majority of people to take part and exercise their democratic right.

Full text:

Para 1.41
There is a good deal concern about how exclusive NEDDC has been with regard to the consultation process on the Publication Draft Local Plan. It is very much a case that they are unlikely to change anything in it, believing that it is 'sound'.

However because documents are missing from the evidence base to enable us to comment effectively and feedback forms are not readily available at venues where the Plan is available to read e.g. Dronfield Library, in addition to the forms being overly complicated, this all points to non-inclusive public participation. Those without internet access have been severely disadvantaged in this process.

Advice from the Planning Inspectorate includes a suggested template feedback form as below. NEDDC has an overly complicated form which includes double negatives within questions, designed to put people off. They don't really want our comments, because they have no intention of changing their Plan to take account of the views of residents. They are happy with it, as it is and this was their approach at the consultation last year. 'There's the document, we've followed the rules, we haven't done anything wrong, it has taken seven years to get to here, so we need to get it through' mentality.

EXAMPLE FORM INCLUDED. FULL REPRESENTATION ATTACHED.

Attachments:

Object

North East Derbyshire Publication Draft Local Plan (Reg 19)

Representation ID: 6985

Received: 25/03/2018

Respondent: Mrs Sylvia Machin

Representation:

Plan does not demonstrate exceptional
Circumstances.

Housing target overestimated.

Alternatives inappropriately excluded: brownfield
sites, windfalls, small sites, site near neighbouring
authority, empty houses, increased density on
brownfield to meet affordable housing need.
Housing developments in north of District not
aligned with economic strategy as major
employment growth is in south and east.

These Greenbelt developments are not sustainable:
will increase pollution through additional commuting
and put unmanageable pressure on services,
infrastructure.

Consultation poor. Parts of evidence missing, out
of date or added retrospectively.

I support Group statements submitted by Dronfield

Greenbelt Residents' Group and Dronfield Civic

Society.

Change suggested by respondent:

changes:

Remove proposals for releasing land from the

Greenbelt for housing development.

Lower housing target to a realistic level nearer that

from the Government's proposed standard

methodology.

Include alternative housing sources (brownfield

sites, windfalls, small sites, site near neighbouring

authority, empty houses) as contributions to target.

Increase densities and % affordable housing on non-

Greenbelt sites.

Concentrate housing allocations on strategic sites

near employment sites.

Full text:

Green Belt (Policy SS10) and Housing Allocations (LC1)


Plan does not demonstrate exceptional

circumstances for releasing Greenbelt for housing.

Housing target overestimated: based on unrealistic

economic forecasts and unnecessary inflation for

affordable housing delivery.

Alternatives inappropriately excluded: brownfield

sites, windfalls, small sites, site near neighbouring

authority, empty houses, increased density on

brownfield to meet affordable housing need.

Housing developments in north of District not

aligned with economic strategy as major

employment growth is in south and east.

These Greenbelt developments are not sustainable:

will increase pollution through additional commuting

and put unmanageable pressure on services,

infrastructure.

Consultation poor. Parts of evidence missing, out

of date or added retrospectively.

I support Group statements submitted by Dronfield

Greenbelt Residents' Group and Dronfield Civic

Society.

Object

North East Derbyshire Publication Draft Local Plan (Reg 19)

Representation ID: 6986

Received: 25/03/2018

Respondent: Mrs Sylvia Machin

Representation:

site identified in point 3.4.7

to 3.4.12 of the Sustainability

Assessment being beyond

satisfactory distance from the railway

station, primary school, GP

surgery.

Result an increase in car usage causing congestion and pollution,

(NEDDC State, We receive this advice from the Highways Authority at Derbyshire County Council. For this site, the Highway Authority advises that satisfactory access can be achieved from Chesterfield Rd, although site level/ gradient are significant.) which as stated will cause massive pollution & total necessity for Vehicle use.

Local Plan does not recognise these concerns nor suggest solutions.

3.4.19 states development

would lead to urban

sprawl.

Change suggested by respondent:


Do Not consider this site for housing.

Protect the Greenbelt,

Protect the iIdentity of Dronfield,

Prevent merger with neighbouring
settlements

and

Prevent worsening congestion and

pollution.

Do not overburden already

stretched infra structures.

Full text:

Dronfield DR1 land off Shakespeare Crescent Sheffield Road, Dronfield,

This site was identified in point 3.4.7

to 3.4.12 of the Sustainability

Assessment as being beyond the

satisfactory distance from the railway

station, primary school and GP

surgery. The result would be an increase in car usage leading to congestion and pollution,
(NEDDC State, We receive this advice from the Highways Authority at Derbyshire County Council. For this site, the Highway Authority advises that a satisfactory access can be achieved from Chesterfield Rd, although site level/ gradient are significant.) which as stated will cause massive pollution and total necessity for use of cars.
The Local Plan does not recognise these concerns nor suggest solutions.

Point 3.4.19 states that development

on this site would lead to urban

sprawl as it is at the edge of

Dronfield and would mean loss of the

town's identity through merger with

Unstone.

Object

North East Derbyshire Publication Draft Local Plan (Reg 19)

Representation ID: 6987

Received: 25/03/2018

Respondent: Heather Brown

Representation:

SCI states, "We will ... encourage involvement from those groups that are not usually involved in the planning process."
Council aware in March 2017 of huge public interest in Plan - reasonable to expect continuation of this into second consultation. Yet provision made for only 20 residents at 14/2/18 meeting (public area filled to capacity!). No plans for larger room or live-streaming for 5/3/18 meeting until I publicly requested it. Council only confirmed live-stream on 5/3/18 itself, citing problems due to severe weather a week before. Poor planning, a last-minute response, and a reluctance to involve the public.

Change suggested by respondent:

Comply with your SCI henceforth.

Full text:

SCI states, "We will ... encourage involvement from those groups that are not usually involved in the planning process."
Council aware in March 2017 of huge public interest in Plan - reasonable to expect continuation of this into second consultation. Yet provision made for only 20 residents at 14/2/18 meeting (public area filled to capacity!). No plans for larger room or live-streaming for 5/3/18 meeting until I publicly requested it. Council only confirmed live-stream on 5/3/18 itself, citing problems due to severe weather a week before. Poor planning, a last-minute response, and a reluctance to involve the public.

Object

North East Derbyshire Publication Draft Local Plan (Reg 19)

Representation ID: 6988

Received: 25/03/2018

Respondent: Heather Brown

Representation:

SCI states "We will ... encourage involvement from those groups that are not usually involved in the planning process."
On behalf of Dronfield Greenbelt, Dr Gadsden requested to Cllrs Baxter and Gordon in May 2017 a meeting to enable more constructive consultation with residents. This request was not fulfilled. Our former MP, Natascha Engel, liaised with Cllr Gordon and the Planning Policy Manager on the group's behalf, to encourage face-to-face dialogue with residents. Again, request not fulfilled.

Council has denied residents opportunity for a more constructive voice during the public consultation phase before Plan is submitted to the Inspectorate.

Change suggested by respondent:

Please engage in meaningful consultation with residents, via all possible platforms.

Full text:

SCI states "We will ... encourage involvement from those groups that are not usually involved in the planning process."
On behalf of Dronfield Greenbelt, Dr Gadsden requested to Cllrs Baxter and Gordon in May 2017 a meeting to enable more constructive consultation with residents. This request was not fulfilled. Our former MP, Natascha Engel, liaised with Cllr Gordon and the Planning Policy Manager on the group's behalf, to encourage face-to-face dialogue with residents. Again, request not fulfilled.

Council has denied residents opportunity for a more constructive voice during the public consultation phase before Plan is submitted to the Inspectorate.

Object

North East Derbyshire Publication Draft Local Plan (Reg 19)

Representation ID: 6989

Received: 25/03/2018

Respondent: Mrs Sylvia Machin

Representation:



Fait accompli by

Councillor Michael Gordon and Senior Planner Philip

Tschavoll-Selenko.

264 pages Plan too long/complicated,

peppered with planning jargon

opaque language, therefore exclusive to proportion of community.

required high level analytical skills.

Contrary to the principles set out in Statement

Community Involvement to use plain English.


Local Plan Steering Group headed by Councillor

Michael Gordon, set on driving this through

at all costs with 'better to have bad

plan than no plan' .

put together under time pressure, with threat of

intervention by Planning Inspectors, knowing NE Derbyshire

was named By authorities not to have Plan

since pre 2011.

Change suggested by respondent:

Change

Shorten it. Take the waffle out. Provide clear

headings, better structure, more concise, provide

clearly what the considered options are and justify

the chosen option.

Make it a Plan, not just a document about planning

jargon, terminology and what Government says.

Make it more about what you are going to deliver for

NE Derbyshire.

A 13-page glossary should tell you that the

language used is not suitable for the electorate.

Government guidelines on Local Plans:

"..all Local Plans should be as focused, concise and

accessible as possible. They should concentrate on

the critical issues facing the area - including its

development needs - and the strategy and

opportunities for addressing them, paying careful

attention to both deliverability and viability."

NE Derbyshire Local Plan does not satisfy these

requirements. This Council has not adhered to

theStatement of Community Involvement to make it

inclusive to all. It is not positively prepared and not

effective as a Local Plan.

Full text:

Publication Draft Local Plan Point 1.10


This Plan was presented at the Dronfield

consultation in February 2017 as a fait accompli by

Councillor Michael Gordon and Senior Planner Philip

Tschavoll-Selenko. The consultation process had

only just begun.

At 264 pages the Plan was too long and too

complicated, being peppered with planning jargon

and opaque language and therefore was exclusive to

a proportion of the community. To make much

sense of it required high level analytical skills. This is

contrary to the principles set out in the Statement

of Community Involvement to use plain English.

Little has been done to reduce the length or

complexity of the Publication Draft Version. It

represents a muddle of policies and objectives and

there is no cohesion or understanding of how these

work together. Neither have changes been made in

the light of the results from the consultation where

only 14% of respondents supported it and the

majority of responses, (76%) were about the Green

Belt and Dronfield.

The Publication Draft which in strategy is the same

as the previous version but with another name, is

evidence of the fait accompli presentation of the

Plan in February 2017. Whilst popularity is not a test

of soundness, there clear evidence that the results

of the consultation have not been taken into

account.

The Local Plan Steering Group headed by Councillor

Michael Gordon, was set on driving this through

pretty much at all costs with a 'better to have a bad

plan than no plan' approach. It has been put

together under time pressure, with threat of

intervention by Planning Inspectors and in

the knowledge that NE Derbyshire was named as

one of fifteen authorities not to have a Plan in place

since pre 2011.



Compare chapter headings of Chesterfield Borough

Council Plan and NE. Chesterfield has: Homes and

Housing, Jobs, Centres and Facilities, Travel and

Transport.

NE has Living Communities, Working Communities

and Economic Development, Sustainable

Development and Communities. Straight away it is

obvious which Plan will be clearer.

It is weak on policy. There should be a chapter

devoted to issues like Addressing Climate Change.

Instead this important issue is watered down within

other chapters.

The NE Derbyshire Plan contains waffle and is a

ramble about what things mean, what the Council

should be doing and what Government policy states

about planning. It is not a Plan at all; just a

document about planning generally.

Object

North East Derbyshire Publication Draft Local Plan (Reg 19)

Representation ID: 6995

Received: 25/03/2018

Respondent: Heather Brown

Representation:

Council has disregarded the consultation process by not making available Green Belt Topic Paper and Statement of Duty to Cooperate until 22/3/18. This disadvantages those who have already submitted their representations; most are unlikely to re-visit their submissions to take account of the late documents. As the GBTP impacts on multiple aspects of the Plan and is intrinsically-linked to other documents, the value of representations already submitted is significantly reduced. As the use of Greenbelt is the most contentious element of the Plan, to publish the GBTP towards the end of the consultation process is appallingly underhand.

Change suggested by respondent:

Start the whole process again with a genuine consultation where ALL the information is available to residents from the beginning.

Full text:

Council has disregarded the consultation process by not making available Green Belt Topic Paper and Statement of Duty to Cooperate until 22/3/18. This disadvantages those who have already submitted their representations; most are unlikely to re-visit their submissions to take account of the late documents. As the GBTP impacts on multiple aspects of the Plan and is intrinsically-linked to other documents, the value of representations already submitted is significantly reduced. As the use of Greenbelt is the most contentious element of the Plan, to publish the GBTP towards the end of the consultation process is appallingly underhand.

Object

North East Derbyshire Publication Draft Local Plan (Reg 19)

Representation ID: 6996

Received: 25/03/2018

Respondent: Heather Brown

Representation:

GBTP and Statement of Duty to Cooperate made publicly available 22/3/18. Council extended consultation period but only representations relating to these late documents permissible after original 4/4/18 deadline. Yet another confusing deterrent to people wishing to make representations. The delay, and two deadlines, results in a piecemeal consultation which risks representations losing context.

Change suggested by respondent:

Start again with the consultation. Plain English versions of ALL documents, together with simple summarisations. Plain English still lacking in other documents forming the evidence base.

Full text:

GBTP and Statement of Duty to Cooperate made publicly available 22/3/18. Council extended consultation period but only representations relating to these late documents permissible after original 4/4/18 deadline. Yet another confusing deterrent to people wishing to make representations. The delay, and two deadlines, results in a piecemeal consultation which risks representations losing context.

Object

North East Derbyshire Publication Draft Local Plan (Reg 19)

Representation ID: 7000

Received: 24/03/2018

Respondent: Mrs Jane Singleton

Representation:

Green Belt Topic Paper Table 13 p32
The Green Belt Topic Paper which wasn't part of the consultation evidence until 22nd March (4 weeks into the 6 week consultation period) is once again a document that has been added retrospectively to the evidence base. It has not therefore 'informed' the Plan.

It represents a contrived approach to try and justify a poor, ill-thought through spatial strategy based on over-inflated housing numbers which are also based on a document added retrospectively to the Consultation Draft in 2017, which was based on a potential growth scenario. All previous evidence points to a much lower OAN.

The Green Belt Topic Paper is irrelevant, because the underlying housing numbers are incorrect. There are no exceptional circumstances to demonstrate taking land from the Green Belt if the OAN is calculated accurately

Change suggested by respondent:

The Green Belt Topic Paper is a retrospective document which hasn't informed the Plan.
The OAN is over-inflated by at least 60 dwellings a year. Over the 15 year Plan period that equates to 900 dwellings. This impacts the whole Plan and its strategy for housing distribution.

Lower it and Point 1 of Court Decision identified in the Topic Paper will mean that exceptional circumstances have not been demonstrated.

Unsound, unjustified, not positively prepared, not legally compliant.

Full text:

Green Belt Topic Paper Table 13 p32
The Green Belt Topic Paper which wasn't part of the consultation evidence until 22nd March (4 weeks into the 6 week consultation period) is once again a document that has been added retrospectively to the evidence base. It has not therefore 'informed' the Plan.

It represents a contrived approach to try and justify a poor, ill-thought through spatial strategy based on over-inflated housing numbers which are also based on a document added retrospectively to the Consultation Draft in 2017, which was based on a potential growth scenario. All previous evidence points to a much lower OAN.

The Green Belt Topic Paper is irrelevant, because the underlying housing numbers are incorrect. There are no exceptional circumstances to demonstrate taking land from the Green Belt if the OAN is calculated accurately. 129 words

Here is my supporting evidence which I request is submitted to the Inspector.
In the Green Belt Topic Paper, a Court Decision (Point 1.13) examined 'exceptional circumstances' and identified the first of the five tests as: 1.The acuteness/intensity of the objectively assessed need (matters of degree may be important);
NEDDC has massively over-estimated the OAN. The Government methodology suggests the OAN should be around 276. Demographic need is 248. NEDDC began with 283 which is 14% over demographic need and then inflated it to 330, meaning an uplift of 33% on demographic need. Economic growth estimates put NE Derbyshire at 0.2%. Evidence base documents state that there is no need to inflate housing target for economic growth. North East Derbyshire has been taken out of context with the HMA which also indicates that the OAN should be lower. Completions (Table 13 of Green Belt Topic Paper) show that the average completion rate is 235 dwellings per year, again nearer to the demographic evidence for the OAN. Looking at completions, up to 31/03/2017 there was an undersupply of 15 if the target was 330. Since then, there have been 496 completions with 142 in process meaning an oversupply of 293 dwellings currently. Obviously if the OAN was lower, the oversupply would be much greater.

Attachments:

Object

North East Derbyshire Publication Draft Local Plan (Reg 19)

Representation ID: 7034

Received: 26/03/2018

Respondent: Mr James Singleton

Representation:

I am disappointed with the conduct of NEDCC during this consultation. It is both disappointing and frustrating that councillors have refused to meet members of the Dronfield Greenbelt Group, and have not responded to emails. Additionally, a refusal to debate a 4,000+ signature petition at a Council meeting shows a total disregard towards the concerns of the people councillors are supposed to be representing. Political bickering has shown that councillors care more about their own party than the residents, or the local environment.

Change suggested by respondent:

Many resident's objections at an earlier stage in the consultation were erroneously recorded as 'comments' rather than objections, giving an inaccurate representation of just how many people object to the local plan. This goes against NEDCC's Community Involvement Strategy, which states you will "make sure your involvement is effective by ensuring all comments received by the authority are recorded, read carefully and taken into account." NEDCC has failed to demonstrate it has done this, and therefore the plan is not legally compliant/sound.

Full text:

I am disappointed with the conduct of NEDCC during this consultation. It is both disappointing and frustrating that councillors have refused to meet members of the Dronfield Greenbelt Group, and have not responded to emails. Additionally, a refusal to debate a 4,000+ signature petition at a Council meeting shows a total disregard towards the concerns of the people councillors are supposed to be representing. Political bickering has shown that councillors care more about their own party than the residents, or the local environment.

Attachments:

Object

North East Derbyshire Publication Draft Local Plan (Reg 19)

Representation ID: 7052

Received: 27/03/2018

Respondent: Mr David Oliver

Representation:

I object to building houses on greenbelt landon
Brownfield land is available
Too much strain on local doctors & schools.

Change suggested by respondent:

Policy is not being followed
Have used friendly format online .

Full text:

I object to building houses on greenbelt landon
Brownfield land is available
Too much strain on local doctors & schools.

Attachments:

Object

North East Derbyshire Publication Draft Local Plan (Reg 19)

Representation ID: 7058

Received: 27/03/2018

Respondent: Dr Clare Freeman

Representation:

Consultation about the Local Plan has been poor from the start. The process is over complicated and the documents are obscure, hard to navigate and use technical language, despite the council's claims- leaflet Community Involvement Strategy SC1 states that the process "will be kept simple by writing in plain English and explaining any planning terms". Concerned residents worked hard to collect over 4000 signatures on a petition objecting to the decision to develop the Greenbelt yet the Council refused to let the residents group speak and this important document was registered as just one objection.

Change suggested by respondent:

The Council needs to listen to the views of local residents and be prepared to address their concerns. There should be a plain English version of the Local Plan available to ensure that everybody can comment and have their say.

Full text:

Consultation about the Local Plan has been poor from the start. The process is over complicated and the documents are obscure, hard to navigate and use technical language, despite the council's claims- leaflet Community Involvement Strategy SC1 states that the process "will be kept simple by writing in plain English and explaining any planning terms". Concerned residents worked hard to collect over 4000 signatures on a petition objecting to the decision to develop the Greenbelt yet the Council refused to let the residents group speak and this important document was registered as just one objection.