Council reading of the consultation process is neither fair nor correct

RBWM Residents Action Group (RRAG) has become concerned by the mixed messages that Cllr Coppinger has been giving about how the latest consultation responses will be handled by RBWM and the inspector e.g. ‘whilst we will submit all comments we will separate the two and we do not believe that the inspector will consider anything which does not relate to the questions she asked us to examine’.

We felt strongly that we could not let this go unchallenged. So on January 12, Peter Lerner, the planning consultant who is advising RRAG, sent a letter to James Carpenter, the interim head of planning for RBWM, to make our concerns known. We believe:

(a) RBWM has tried to restrict what residents can comment on;

(b) Cllr Coppinger has compounded the error by suggesting that the inspector won’t look at all the comments made by residents. He also tries to shift the responsibility for this onto the inspector. Pull the other one!

RBWM has divided the proposed changes to the BLPSV [Borough Local Plan Submission Version] into Proposed Main Modifications and Proposed Minor

Changes.

According to RBWM, the Table of Proposed Main Changes includes the modifications of the BLPSV that are necessary to make it legally compliant and sound.

The council will invite the inspector to recommend the Proposed Changes as

Main Modifications (or MMs) of the BLPSV to enable its adoption.

RBWM also said that it was not inviting representations on the Proposed Minor Changes as they are not necessary to make the BLPSV sound and legally compliant.

RRAG’s position is that the council cannot and should not try to control whether or not its residents and businesses make other comments.

To deny or reject our comments is not justifiable and it means that the minor, or other undefined changes, would pass through the process unchallenged.

RRAG has also been particularly disturbed by specific comments made by Cllr David Coppinger to local residents, as follows: “Whilst residents and any other persons are welcome to make any comments, the inspector is seeking feedback on changes to the original submission. Whilst we will submit all comments we will separate the two and we do not believe that the inspector will consider anything which does not relate to the questions she asked us to examine.”

He added: “The reason we ask people to use the process is that it is the method that the inspector requires. All emails have to be entered into the system by borough staff but again they will only codify comments on changes. All emails will be sent to the inspector but it is unlikely she will look at them.”

We think that in this case Cllr

Coppinger’s interpretation of the process for this consultation is neither fair nor correct as it suggests that the council may arbitrarily choose only to ‘codify’, rather than analyse and consider responses to our comments.

Cllr Coppinger’s comments are at odds with what another member of the RBWM planning team has said in emails to a member of RRAG that: All representations will be ‘properly analysed’ by the council, and ‘will be sent both as they are and also in an analysed summary form’.

RRAG has asked James Carpenter for confirmation that all consultation responses which have been received will be read and considered by the council and forwarded to the inspector.

We would also like confirmation that the council will analyse all comments and not just the comments on Main Modifications.

RRAG STEERING GROUP