Object
Preferred Options for Sites
Representation ID: 64341
Received: 21/04/2014
Respondent: Sarah Smith
There is great inconsistency in the commentary for some sites being deemed suitable and others unsuitable. For example: There is no mention that the owner of GT19 is not prepared to sell the land to the Council. By comparison Sites GT02, GT05, GT06, GT08 and GTalt12 all say "the land owner is not willing to sell the site, so compulsory purchase powers would have to be used to bring the site forward." This, rather than sound planning reasons, seems to be the principal factor in the Council's site selection process.
2.10 - COMMENT
The GTAA was actually published in November 2012, so this does not bode well for the professionalism or competence of the Council's approach
2.13 - COMMENT
The public deserves more information on why conversations with neighbouring authorities over several years have not yielded any results.
6. Criteria
6.3 - COMMENT
A fundamental flaw in this draft policy is that there is no explanation of why some 'green' sites are in Preferred Sites and others are Alternative Sites. You should be more transparent.
Please therefore provide me with further information on this point.
10. Summary of Alternative Sites - COMMENT
Why are no photographs of the Alternative Sites provided, unlike for the Preferred Sites in section 9? This is arguably prejudicial as all sites should be given the same treatment in the documentation.
Please could Council officers explain this inconsistency?