Local plan scoping consultation

Comment

Representation ID: 1560

Received: 14/08/2026

Respondent: Barry Speed

This cannot be a consultation for the majority of residents - the plan is simply too big, too detailed, and with insufficient guidance for the layperson to understand the meaning and implications of the plan.

Comment

Representation ID: 1561

Received: 14/08/2026

Respondent: Barry Speed

There seem to be a lot of important aspects missing, for example:
water management
housing standards
traffic reduction
noise pollution
truly-affordable housing
access to the natural environment
prioritisation of brownfield sites
air pollution

Comment

Representation ID: 1562

Received: 14/08/2026

Respondent: Barry Speed

The whole plan seems to be geared around housing development. Surely the protection of the natural environment must be the absolute priority.
In addition the presumption appears to be economic growth - surely we should replace this by a measure of wellbeing.

Comment

Representation ID: 1563

Received: 14/08/2026

Respondent: Barry Speed

This so-called consultation appears to be heavily geared towards building developers and land-bankers. A better approach would be to set up a citizen's assembly, with expert facilitators.

Comment

Representation ID: 1564

Received: 14/08/2026

Respondent: Barry Speed

This appears to be a target for private-market development. Surely this must include a proportion of social housing, as mentioned in the current government's latest statements?
In addition the total available should surely include currently empty of derelict properties?

Comment

Representation ID: 1565

Received: 14/08/2026

Respondent: Barry Speed

The interpretation of grey belt appears deliberately vague. You must take into account issues of pollution (noise, air, traffic), and access to the natural environment, when considering such designations.
We don't see a map with proposed grey belt areas defined.

Comment

Representation ID: 1566

Received: 14/08/2026

Respondent: Barry Speed

Prioritisation of brownfield development is clearly welcomed. However we haven't seen a call for sites to include brownfield, nor has there been a sufficient exercise carried out to identify such sites, and we don't see a map with sites identified. Most importantly we don't see sufficient incentives for site owners to come forward.

Comment

Representation ID: 1567

Received: 14/08/2026

Respondent: Barry Speed

The policy of unlimited, perpetual economic growth is clearly unsustainable. This falsehood should be formally recognised, and replaced with a measure of citizen wellbeing.

Comment

Representation ID: 1568

Received: 14/08/2026

Respondent: Barry Speed

Again, why is so-called 'economic growth' the priority? This unregulated growth has led to our current world-wide climate and ecological crises. As mentioned above, a measure of citizen wellbeing would be far more appropriate.

Comment

Representation ID: 1569

Received: 14/08/2026

Respondent: Barry Speed

It is impossible to read and comment on this vast array of documents. A citizen's assembly with expert facilitators is probably the only truly effective and democratic way to assess the Plan in its entirety.