Despite EHDC’s obligation to ensure active public participation in the planning permission process, the current flawed system results in continuous engagement in disengagement. This paradox highlights the failure of EHDC, as the system intended to foster public involvement instead causes widespread disengagement and a state of social helplessness among the community.
EHDC is required to facilitate meaningful public engagement in the planning process. However, the existing processes are overly complex, inconsistent, and difficult for the average resident to navigate.
1. Overwhelming Information: The sheer volume of information, presented in non-standardized formats with excessive use of acronyms, overwhelms residents, making it nearly impossible for them to stay informed or participate effectively.
2. Lack of Notifications: There is no efficient system to notify residents about multi-dwelling planning applications affecting their area (relevant to their location – zone of influence – development proposals). This leaves many unaware of developments that could significantly impact their community. For instance, the only reason many found out about the current planning application under standard consultation, the fact that EHDC is allowing developments not included in our Local Development Plan, and that EHDC is trying to further expand the already significant development of the village of Medstead, is because of SMASH.
3. Fragmented Documentation: Key documents are often disorganised and difficult to access.
For example:
1. The planning application portal’s limitations, such as allowing only ten documents to be downloaded at a time and lacking clear naming conventions, complicate the process.
2. The land availability assessment uses LAA references. However, they are not linked with Unique Property Reference Numbers (UPRN), property title numbers, or planning permission reference numbers, further complicating the process of tracking and understanding planning applications.
3. The version of the Draft Local Plan shared with me on 1st May 2024 feels like a poorly done secondary school assignment. It lacks consistency, the content does not flow well, and it contains errors. For example, land that is actually in Medstead (LAA Reference MED-022) is included under Four Marks development sites. Additionally, Page 422, titled ‘Four Marks,’ includes a map of the Four Marks & Medstead ward. The content that follows is vague and/or irrelevant to the purpose. Pages relevant to Medstead are 454 and 463-464, but the document does not maintain the same structure for each village. For some reason, it splits Medstead from Four Marks with Bentley. The illustrations, which clearly come from a good quality source—the EHDC interactive map—are included in the LDP in poor, difficult-to-read quality, with truncated pages and other issues. The submission of such a document for consultation undermines the entire system and erodes trust in the people in charge.
Until the status quo is changed, EHDC cannot expect full cooperation from the members of the public. The current system’s flaws alienate residents, making it difficult for them to engage meaningfully in the planning process. Therefore, the only way to properly identify the impact of multi-dwelling developments that are outside the current Local Development Plan of Medstead is to automatically trigger a full Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA).
References