Object
Chichester Local Plan 2021 - 2039: Proposed Submission
Representation ID: 4568
Received: 16/03/2023
Respondent: Mr Matthew Taylor
Legally compliant? No
Sound? No
Duty to co-operate? Yes
The strategy of the Plan has changed in such a way that that the public should have an opportunity to comment on those changes before a Reg 19 consultation. As we can only comment on tests of soundness there is not an opportunity for appropriate public engagement. There is not an opportunity to comment on new allocations, the suitability of the sites, or content of the policy. it is not felt that there is an intention for meaningful engagement.
We cannot make comments on new allocations, or changes to strategy i.e. introducing Gypsy and Traveller sites on all allocations at a Reg 19 stage of a Local Plan. It feels as though the Plan has been rushed through in order to tick boxes rather than producing a Plan where the public can meaningfully comment and shape our communities.
The Plan should be paused and time given for public engagement at a meaningful level.
I would question whether the Plan should be a Reg 19 consultation. The Plan contains changes to strategy and approach which the general public have not had the opportunity to comment on. As this is a 'technical consultation' where we can only comment on issues relating to the test of soundness it hardly gives the general public an opportunity for genuine public engagement.
The strategy of the Plan has changed for example:
- removal of all allocations on the Manhood Peninsula
- the identification of additional sites i.e. Maudlin Farm , Rolls Royce etc with no opportunity to comment on their suitability or policy requirements
- the inclusion of Gypsy and Traveller sites on all allocations again without an opportunity to comment on the suitability of this approach or policy requirements
- amendments to the wildlife corridors without an opportunity to comment on this. Given that changes now enable development in some areas ie Maudlin this could be seen as a cynical move.