Broadland District Council's invitation to visitors to their website to send in their views on the Joint Core Strategy Examination in Public Inspectors' changes by the 2nd February 2011 is a little half-hearted. Nice banner headline but no further background information - nothing but a link straight to the GNDP's website which in itself is enough to baffle the faint-hearted.
One suspects that take up of this invitation will be limited due to lack of comprehensible information and the totally unfriendly layout of the Inspectors' Note. It seems that this is nothing more than another formality in the JCS's journey through the system. Lack of response will not mean agreement to the changes as even those that have been present at the EiP will be wondering how to respond to that 'note' in a meaningful way which might have some impact.
I think Broadland Council have done their best, and so has the Inspector, to hand us (the public) the opportunity to make really hard-hitting comments.
ReplyDeleteI was told on Sunday by the husband of a County Councillor that critical comments to the Council are always best made individually (whatever the topic), to increase the total number - because a joint objection signed by, say, 100 people, is simply counted as one.
A template comment ought to be drafted, then people can simply write it out by hand, make any alterations they wish, and send it to the proper address by 2nd February.
The Inspector has done two things for us. He has insisted that development to the north of Norwich be stated by the JCS to be utterly dependent on the construction of the NDR. He has not insisted, but it is common knowledge, that any increase in vehicular emissions anywhere is against both national and international law, and those laws are simple to quote and produce. So this is quite a formidable weapon that we have been given access to. We had access to it before, but the Inspector has pinned the whole project on it. What are we waiting for? It is not an attack on your own car etc. to pull out the law on vehicle emissions. It is an attack on any MORE vehicles entering the area.
The NDR cannot go ahead – it probably won’t get the funding anyway, but the reason it cannot go ahead is that the whole idea is unlawful. It is not for the Inspector to say this. It is for us or our Councillors - but our Councillors seem to be a bit shy and tongue-tied, so that leaves us.
The second plank of the Inspector's comments is a kindly but rather vague gesture towards the importance of any building being sustainable in terms of water supply, carbon emissions, etc. There is also a request that biodiversity corridors be enhanced between the various green spaces which the developers aim to retain. It would be possible to simply support these changes, adding that they are the bare minimum required by the Biodiversity Convention and the Climate Change Convention to ensure the survival of many species including our own. A caveat could be, that it is no good creating green "Bantustans" linked by green corridors - if the many species on which we depend are to thrive, there must be huge areas of non-toxic farmland interspersed with huge areas of wild habitat, and human settlements must be kept well separated and of a sustainable size (and already, many towns in Norfolk need reducing in size to be truly sustainable).