General
Below is advice from a professional planner on writing letters objecting to the plan or arguing that land bordering Mickleover shouldn’t be allocated for housing development. He lives in the neighbourhood and would also be affected by these proposals.
Advice from a planner
Write your own letter in your words expressing your own views about how these proposals would affect you.
Try to focus on the key issues that are of most concern, rather than including lots of relatively trivial items.
As well as stating what each of your concerns is (eg: “if this goes ahead the traffic will be horrendous”) try to explain why. For example you might add that a certain junction is already congested at peak times. The planners should look at all of the concerns and address them before taking the proposals forward. So if there is some specific explanation as to why a certain issue is a concern it will need to be addressed.
If you’re going to raise a technical objection, for example, “our road has had 20 fatal accidents in the past five years”, make sure your facts are correct.
Consider whether the council has an easy answer to your objection. If for example you state “this will mean that all the doctor’s surgeries will become over-subscribed” then the council might counter that new facilities will be provided to meet the demand (you might still want to make this objection and ask which council would provide the resource).
These plans are all about delivering a ‘spatial’ solution to government policies (the plan lays out where things can be built). If the decision to build all these new houses has already been taken through the Regional Spatial Strategy, and land in Mickleover isn’t allocated for this development then some residents elsewhere around Derby will be the ones to lose out. It might be better to make positive alternative suggestions as to where this development should be located and explain why those suggestions would be more appropriate than building in Mickleover.
Keep objections relevant to planning, ie: don’t include anything about the value of your property being affected or losing your views of the countryside. As real as these issues are, they will carry no weight when it comes to decision making time.
The planning system operates whereby decisions should be taken in line with policy. For example, if you wanted to extend your house, you would need to make sure it complied with local policies to do with light, privacy, design, car parking etc. Strategic plan making is no different, although there will be few adopted local policies because this is what the review is all about. The local authority will need to show that what they are proposing is consistent with the policies (or strategic aims) being suggested in the Core Strategy. There is a whole raft of text in the options document about sustainable communities, about developing previously developed land before green field sites and about minimising the impact on the environment. This planner’s view is that there is a huge contradiction between some of these statements and the proposal to dig up hundreds of acres of green field agricultural land around Mickleover and build houses, and that there should be objections to this contradiction.
The Core Spatial Strategy will have to meet nine tests of ‘soundness’ before being adopted. These are listed below for information. Essentially, this type of strategic policy document can be quashed if officers don’t jump over a complicated set of hurdles before putting the document forward in front of a public inquiry. One of these, test 4, is that the plan needs to conform to national planning policies. You could argue that these proposals are contrary to a whole range of these planning policies (PPS1, PPS3, PPS7 and PPG17, etc, etc). Click here and here for links if you want to access any of these. For example, these Core Strategy proposals may be technically ‘unsound’ because they are contrary to national planning policy guidance.
Try to focus on the key issues that are of most concern, rather than including lots of relatively trivial items.
As well as stating what each of your concerns is (eg: “if this goes ahead the traffic will be horrendous”) try to explain why. For example you might add that a certain junction is already congested at peak times. The planners should look at all of the concerns and address them before taking the proposals forward. So if there is some specific explanation as to why a certain issue is a concern it will need to be addressed.
If you’re going to raise a technical objection, for example, “our road has had 20 fatal accidents in the past five years”, make sure your facts are correct.
Consider whether the council has an easy answer to your objection. If for example you state “this will mean that all the doctor’s surgeries will become over-subscribed” then the council might counter that new facilities will be provided to meet the demand (you might still want to make this objection and ask which council would provide the resource).
These plans are all about delivering a ‘spatial’ solution to government policies (the plan lays out where things can be built). If the decision to build all these new houses has already been taken through the Regional Spatial Strategy, and land in Mickleover isn’t allocated for this development then some residents elsewhere around Derby will be the ones to lose out. It might be better to make positive alternative suggestions as to where this development should be located and explain why those suggestions would be more appropriate than building in Mickleover.
Keep objections relevant to planning, ie: don’t include anything about the value of your property being affected or losing your views of the countryside. As real as these issues are, they will carry no weight when it comes to decision making time.
The planning system operates whereby decisions should be taken in line with policy. For example, if you wanted to extend your house, you would need to make sure it complied with local policies to do with light, privacy, design, car parking etc. Strategic plan making is no different, although there will be few adopted local policies because this is what the review is all about. The local authority will need to show that what they are proposing is consistent with the policies (or strategic aims) being suggested in the Core Strategy. There is a whole raft of text in the options document about sustainable communities, about developing previously developed land before green field sites and about minimising the impact on the environment. This planner’s view is that there is a huge contradiction between some of these statements and the proposal to dig up hundreds of acres of green field agricultural land around Mickleover and build houses, and that there should be objections to this contradiction.
The Core Spatial Strategy will have to meet nine tests of ‘soundness’ before being adopted. These are listed below for information. Essentially, this type of strategic policy document can be quashed if officers don’t jump over a complicated set of hurdles before putting the document forward in front of a public inquiry. One of these, test 4, is that the plan needs to conform to national planning policies. You could argue that these proposals are contrary to a whole range of these planning policies (PPS1, PPS3, PPS7 and PPG17, etc, etc). Click here and here for links if you want to access any of these. For example, these Core Strategy proposals may be technically ‘unsound’ because they are contrary to national planning policy guidance.
Tests of Soundness of the Core Spatial Strategy …
Test 1 – The document has been prepared in accordance with the authority’s local development scheme.
Test 2 – The document has been prepared in compliance with the Statement of Community Involvement (SCI) and in accordance with the minimum requirements of the Town and Country Planning (Local Development) Regulations 2004.
Test 3 – The plan and its policies have been subject to a sustainability appraisal.
Test 4 – It is a spatial plan which is consistent with national planning policy and in general conformity with the Regional Spatial Strategy and it has properly had regard to any other relevant plans, policies and strategies relating to the area or to adjoining areas.
Test 5 – It has had regard to the authority's community strategy.
Test 6 – The strategies/policies/allocations in the plan are coherent and consistent within and between development plan documents prepared by the authority and by neighbouring authorities, where cross boundary issues are relevant.
Test 7 – The strategies/policies/allocations represent the most appropriate in all the circumstances, having considered the relevant alternatives, and they are founded on a robust and credible evidence base.
Test 8 – There are clear mechanisms for implementation and monitoring of the documents.
Test 9 – The plan is reasonably flexible to enable it to deal with changing circumstances.
Test 1 – The document has been prepared in accordance with the authority’s local development scheme.
Test 2 – The document has been prepared in compliance with the Statement of Community Involvement (SCI) and in accordance with the minimum requirements of the Town and Country Planning (Local Development) Regulations 2004.
Test 3 – The plan and its policies have been subject to a sustainability appraisal.
Test 4 – It is a spatial plan which is consistent with national planning policy and in general conformity with the Regional Spatial Strategy and it has properly had regard to any other relevant plans, policies and strategies relating to the area or to adjoining areas.
Test 5 – It has had regard to the authority's community strategy.
Test 6 – The strategies/policies/allocations in the plan are coherent and consistent within and between development plan documents prepared by the authority and by neighbouring authorities, where cross boundary issues are relevant.
Test 7 – The strategies/policies/allocations represent the most appropriate in all the circumstances, having considered the relevant alternatives, and they are founded on a robust and credible evidence base.
Test 8 – There are clear mechanisms for implementation and monitoring of the documents.
Test 9 – The plan is reasonably flexible to enable it to deal with changing circumstances.
