Respondent name
Julie Dagnall
Responses
Respondent Type
Resident
Policy Name/Part of plan
MD6
Legally Compliant
No
Sound
No
Compliant with the Duty to Co-operate
No
Why you consider the Draft Local Plan is not legally compliant or is unsound or fails to comply with the duty to co-operate

The way this question is asked is a referendum not a consultation- the wording is not in Plain English, the manner it is presented is complex to nontechnical or non legal individuals who are reading it. This automatically reduces the opportunity for a fair and justified proposal open to all who have a right to be heard.

Modification if applicable

Yet again this opportunity to comment is biased to those with a legal or planning background- making it contrived and purposefully excluding individuals

Respondent Type
Resident
Policy Name/Part of plan
Whole Plan
Legally Compliant
No
Sound
No
Compliant with the Duty to Co-operate
No
Oral Examination
No
Why you consider the Draft Local Plan is not legally compliant or is unsound or fails to comply with the duty to co-operate

This is a Gunning Case - which is contrived, over complicated to the layman and seeks to gain a yes or no approval by the manner and presentation of the objection process.
In its format it does not support or encourage the voice of local people who are not used to the legal wording and goes further to actively discourage the completion of the consultation opportunity given.

Modification if applicable

This is a Gunning Case - which is contrived, over complicated to the layman and seeks to gain a yes or no approval by the manner and presentation of the objection process.
In its format it does not support or encourage the voice of local people who are not used to the legal wording and goes further to actively discourage the completion of the consultation opportunity given.