Tag: MPC: Public Opinion

Material Planning Considerations:

Representations and objections from the public, provided they are based on material planning considerations.

Objection – 20240623 – 04 — Due to Public Health Concerns.pdf

View PNG – Objection
View PDF – Objection
Objection-20240623-04-Due-to-Public-Health-Concerns
View PDF – e-mail
Objection-e-mail-r

Material Considerations Used in the Objection, Grouped by Main Categories

Residential Amenity
  • Mental Health and Well-being: Stress and anxiety from continuous construction.
  • Noise Pollution: Health risks and cognitive impairment from prolonged noise.
  • Community Disruption: Social isolation and disrupted access to services.
Air and Water Quality
  • Air Quality and Respiratory Health: Construction dust and emissions impacting vulnerable populations.
Public Opinion
  • Lack of Transparency and Consultation: Undermined public trust due to inadequate consultation.

Disclaimer

Objection – 20240623 – 06 — Based on Deliverability and Sustainability Concerns.pdf

View PNG – Objection
View PDF – Objection
Objection-20240623-06-Based-on-Deliverability-and-Sustainability-Concerns-1
View PDF – e-mail
Objection-e-mail-r

Material Considerations Used in the Objection, Grouped by Main Categories

Deliverability and Sustainability
  • Ecological Impact and Sustainability: Concerns over outdated data and insufficient sustainability measures.
  • Environmental and Flood Risks: Historical flooding issues inadequately addressed.
  • Infrastructure and Service Strain: Inaccurate housing supply figures and repurposed NHS comments.
  • Public Opinion and Community Impact: Significant community opposition and manipulated feedback.
  • Archaeological Concerns: Insufficient mitigation for potential archaeological findings.

Disclaimer

Objection – 20240623 – 05 — Based on the Ecological Impact Assessment.pdf

View PNG – Objection
View PDF – Objection
Objection-20240623-05-Based-on-the-Ecological-Impact-Assessment
View PDF – e-mail
Objection-e-mail-r

Material Considerations Used in the Objection, Grouped by Main Categories

Environmental Impact
  • Significant Biodiversity Net Loss: High loss of biodiversity contrary to planning policies.
  • Insufficient Mitigation and Compensation Measures: Lack of detailed, enforceable plans.
  • Potential Adverse Effects on Local Wildlife: Risks to protected species with inadequate mitigation.
  • Cumulative Impact with Previous Developments: Additional habitat loss and urbanisation.
  • Impact on Non-Statutory Designated Sites: Risks to nearby nature conservation sites.
  • Inadequate Consideration of In-Combination Effects: Lack of comprehensive assessment of cumulative impacts.

Disclaimer

Objection – 20240623 – 03 — Due to Traffic and Access, Flood Risk and Community Impact Concerns.pdf

View PNG – Objection
View PDF – Objection
Objection-20240623-03-Due-to-Traffic-and-Access-Flood-Risk-and-Community-Impact-Concerns
View PDF – e-mail
Objection-e-mail-r

Material Considerations Used in the Objection, Grouped by Main Categories

Traffic and Access
  • Outdated Traffic Data: Reliance on outdated surveys.
  • Survey Methods: Scrutiny of survey methods for accuracy.
  • Feasibility of Mitigation Measures: Evaluation of proposed road improvements.
  • Cumulative Impact: Assessment of cumulative traffic impacts.
Flood Risk
  • Existing Flooding Problems: Ongoing flooding issues at Beechlands Road and Redhill junction.
  • Exacerbation of Flooding Issues: Concerns over increased flooding from new development.
  • Lack of Detailed Plans: Insufficient flood risk mitigation details.
Residential Amenity
  • Impact on Local Infrastructure: Strain on local services and amenities.
  • Safety and Accessibility: Risks from flooding affecting safety and access.

Disclaimer

Objection – 20240623 – 02 — Due to Inadequate Community Involvement and Lack of Trust.pdf

View PNG – Objection
View PDF – Objection
Objection-20240623-02-Due-to-Inadequate-Community-Involvement-and-Lack-of-Trust-1
View PDF – e-mail
Objection-e-mail-r

Material Considerations Used in the Objection, Grouped by Main Categories

Public Opinion
  • Limited and Biased Consultation Reach: Insufficient and potentially biased community engagement.
  • Superficial Responses to Concerns: Developer’s inadequate responses to community concerns.
  • Manipulated Feedback: Lack of trust in the consultation practices.
  • Fear of Voicing Opinions: Residents fear repercussions for voicing concerns.

Disclaimer

COVERING_LETTER-1335946.pdf

VIEW PDF
COVERING_LETTER-1335946

Summary

Establishes:

Outline Application Submission: Provides a summary of the outline planning application for up to 70 dwellings, including details about vehicular and pedestrian accesses, public open space, landscaping, and drainage.

Referenced Documents: Lists the documents and plans submitted as part of the application package, including transport assessment, ecological impact assessment, flood risk assessment, and more…

Weak Points:

General Information: The letter primarily provides an overview without detailed justifications or specific data. It refers to other documents for comprehensive details.

Potential for Overlooked Concerns: If the referenced documents do not fully address key concerns, there may be gaps in the application package.

Documents:

The covering letter for the planning application includes a comprehensive list of documents and plans submitted as part of the application package. Here are the documents and plans referenced:

  1. Application Form and Ownership Certificate (Certificate B)
  2. Planning Statement, incorporating:
    • Sustainability Statement
    • Affordable Housing Statement
    • s106 Heads of Terms (Prepared by SLR Consulting)
  3. Design and Access Statement (Prepared by Thrive Architects)
  4. Statement of Community Involvement (Prepared by SLR Consulting)
  5. Housing Land Supply Assessment (Prepared by Pegasus Group)
  6. Transport Assessment, incorporating:
    • Road Safety Audit (Prepared by iTransport)
  7. Framework Travel Plan (Prepared by iTransport)
  8. Flood Risk Assessment (Prepared by The Civil Engineering Practice)
  9. Utilities Statement (Prepared by The Civil Engineering Practice)
  10. Landscape and Visual Appraisal, including:
    • Associated viewpoint photographs
    • Designation plans (Prepared by SLR Consulting)
  11. Ecological Impact Assessment (Prepared by LC Ecological Services)
  12. Biodiversity Net Gain Metric (Prepared by LC Ecological Services)
  13. Arboricultural Impact Assessment and Method Statement (Prepared by Barrell Tree Consultancy)
  14. Tree Protection Plan (Prepared by Barrell Tree Consultancy)
  15. Manual for Managing Trees on Development Sites (By Barrell Tree Consultancy)
  16. Desk-Based Archaeology Assessment (Prepared by SLR Consulting)
  17. Phase 1 Geo-Environmental and Geotechnical Site Assessment (Prepared by Geo-Environmental)
  18. Lighting Plan (Prepared by Nulty Lighting)
  19. Noise Impact Assessment (Prepared by SLR Consulting)
  20. Sustainability Checklist (Prepared by SLR Consulting)
  21. Validation Checklist (Prepared by SLR Consulting)

What aspects should be evaluated in relation to this document?

LOCAL AND NATIONAL PLANNING POLICIES

Verify Compliance:

  • Ensure the covering letter confirms compliance with relevant local and national planning policies. This includes adherence to all relevant legal and regulatory requirements, obtaining necessary permits, and ensuring the development complies with zoning laws and environmental regulations.

Review Alignment with Policy Objectives:

  • Assess how the proposed development aligns with broader planning objectives outlined in local and national policies, including sustainability goals, housing needs, and infrastructure improvements.

INFRASTRUCTURE AND SERVICES

Assess Impact on Infrastructure:

  • Evaluate how the proposed development will impact local infrastructure, including transportation, utilities, and public services. The covering letter should outline any plans to upgrade or expand infrastructure to accommodate the new development.

RESIDENTIAL AMENITY

Review Impact on Residents:

  • Consider how the development will affect existing residents. The covering letter should address potential impacts on noise levels, privacy, and access to amenities. It should also highlight any proposed measures to mitigate negative impacts on residential amenity.

ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT

Evaluate Environmental Considerations:

  • Assess how the development addresses environmental concerns. The covering letter should mention strategies for minimizing the environmental footprint, such as sustainable building practices, green spaces, and conservation efforts.

DESIGN AND APPEARANCE

Review Architectural and Landscape Design:

  • Examine the proposed architectural and landscape design elements. The covering letter should provide an overview of how the design complements the existing neighborhood and enhances the visual appeal of the area.

PUBLIC OPINION

Assess Community Involvement:

  • Evaluate the extent of community involvement in the planning process. The covering letter should detail any community consultations that have taken place and how feedback from residents has been incorporated into the development plans.

Disclaimer

Objection to Planning Application 27000-005 — 20240621 – 03.pdf

VIEW Objection (PDF)
Objection-to-Planning-Application-27000-005-20240621-03

VIEW Submission Confirmation (PDF)
submission-r

Summary

1. Procedural Concerns:

This section addresses the incomplete disclosure of material considerations and the lack of public awareness regarding the application’s consideration under Paragraph 11 of the NPPF. It emphasises the importance of transparency and informed public participation.

2. Impact on Traffic and Access:

This section discusses the increased traffic congestion and potential delays to emergency services due to the proposed development’s access plan leading to Lymington Bottom Road, a primary route to hospitals and other essential services.

3. Potential Procedural Error:

This section points out the potential procedural errors due to the failure to disclose all material considerations and the omission of a comprehensive EIA, which might undermine the integrity of the planning process.

4. Conclusion:

This section concludes that the proposed development does not meet the sustainability criteria required by Paragraph 11 of the NPPF. It urges the council to reject the application unless substantial revisions are made to address the critical concerns comprehensively.

Disclaimer

Material Planning Considerations: Public Opinion

Public Opinion refers to the views and concerns of the community, residents, businesses, and other stakeholders regarding a proposed development. When evaluating planning applications, planning authorities consider public opinion to ensure that developments are responsive to the needs and values of the community and to enhance democratic participation in the planning process.

Key Components of Public Opinion Considerations

Community Feedback
  • Formal Submissions: Written comments, objections, and support statements submitted by members of the public during the consultation period.
  • Public Meetings: Feedback gathered from public consultations, meetings, and hearings where community members can express their views and ask questions about the proposed development.

Petitions and Campaigns
  • Petitions: Organized efforts by community groups or residents to collect signatures in support of or against the proposed development.
  • Campaigns: Advocacy and awareness campaigns by community groups, which may include media coverage, social media activities, and public demonstrations.

Local Councils and Representatives
  • Parish and Town Councils: Views and formal responses from local parish or town councils representing the interests of their communities.
  • Elected Representatives: Opinions and feedback from local elected officials, such as councillors and Members of Parliament (MPs), who advocate on behalf of their constituents.

Stakeholder Engagement
  • Businesses and Organizations: Input from local businesses, chambers of commerce, non-profit organizations, and other stakeholders who may be affected by the development.
  • Environmental and Community Groups: Feedback from groups focused on environmental conservation, heritage preservation, and community development.

Surveys and Polls
  • Community Surveys: Surveys conducted by the local planning authority, developers, or independent organizations to gather broader community input on the proposed development.
  • Online Polls: Digital platforms used to collect and gauge public sentiment about the development.

How Public Opinion Considerations Influence Planning Decisions

1. Assessment of Material Planning Considerations:

  • Relevance: Planning authorities consider public opinions that are based on material planning considerations, such as impacts on traffic, environment, heritage, residential amenity, and compliance with planning policies.
  • Weight: The weight given to public opinion depends on the relevance and substance of the issues raised. Concerns that are well-founded and supported by evidence carry more weight in decision-making.


2. Consultation Processes:

  • Statutory Requirements: Public consultation is a statutory requirement for many planning applications. Authorities must ensure that the consultation process is fair, transparent, and inclusive.
  • Inclusive Engagement: Efforts are made to engage a broad cross-section of the community, including hard-to-reach groups, to ensure diverse viewpoints are considered.


3. Balancing Public and Private Interests:

  • Community Benefit: Planning authorities balance the benefits of the proposed development to the wider community against the concerns raised by individuals or groups. Developments that provide significant public benefits may be favoured, even if some opposition exists.
  • Mitigation Measures: Developers may be required to propose mitigation measures to address public concerns, such as modifying designs, enhancing infrastructure, or providing community amenities.


4. Transparency and Accountability:

  • Decision-Making: Planning authorities must demonstrate that they have considered public opinion in their decision-making process. This includes providing clear reasons for their decisions and how public feedback has been addressed.
  • Feedback Loops: Authorities often provide feedback to the community on how their input influenced the final decision, fostering trust and transparency.

Importance in Planning Applications

1. Democratic Participation:

  • Engaging the public in the planning process ensures democratic participation and gives community members a voice in shaping their environment.


2. Community Buy-In and Support:

  • Developments that consider and address public opinion are more likely to gain community support and face fewer challenges during implementation.


3. Identification of Local Issues:

  • Public feedback helps identify local issues and concerns that may not be apparent through formal assessments alone. This can lead to more informed and context-sensitive planning decisions.


4. Social Cohesion:

  • Considering public opinion fosters social cohesion by demonstrating that the planning process is responsive to the needs and values of the community.


5. Improved Outcomes:

  • Developments that incorporate public feedback tend to result in better outcomes, including enhanced design, functionality, and community acceptance.


Conclusion


By thoroughly considering public opinion in planning applications, planning authorities can ensure that new developments are responsive to community needs and values. This comprehensive approach enhances democratic participation, fosters community support, and leads to more informed and context-sensitive planning decisions. Balancing public opinion with other material considerations helps promote sustainable and inclusive development that benefits both the community and the broader environment.

Handout