Site Allocations Plan March 2016

Document Section Site Allocations Plan March 2016 Introduction Plan making progress [View all comments on this section]
Comment ID 14823809//3
Respondent Nailsea Action Group [View all comments by this respondent]
Response Date 27 Apr 2016

Plan Making Process

The National Planning Policy Framework (paragraph 155) requires “Early and meaningful engagement and collaboration with neighbourhoods, local organisations and businesses… A wide section of the community should be proactively engaged, so that Local Plans, as far as possible, reflect a collective vision and a set of agreed priorities for the sustainable development of the area” We do not consider that the plan making process has proactively engaged with a wide section of the community of Nailsea and the surrounding areas that would be affected by the proposals. We do not believe that the number of houses allocated to Nailsea or the current site proposals reflect a collective vision for Nailsea. We presented a petition to the Nailsea Town Council to highlight this. We have not seen any evidence from Nailsea Town Council/North Somerset Council to demonstrate that the current site proposals reflect a collective vision for Nailsea.

We wish to comment about the NSC Consultation in Nailsea on the 22nd March. This consultation was one about which many residents have strong views, and more care should have been taken about the organisation.

Firstly, the consultation was not advertised in any publication or on-line. The only reference was in North Somerset Life magazine (February version) which referred to this consultation (very brief and buried on page 12), and the date given for Nailsea was the 12th March rather then the actual date of 22nd March. Many residents have informed NAG that they did not know that a consultation process was in progress. Most of the attendees were only alerted by the leafletting carried out by Nailsea Action Group (NAG).

Secondly, the consultation held in Nailsea was badly organised. It was held in Nailsea Library. There were just two boards consisting of maps etc. in small print. These boards were behind the railings of a stairwell in a very cramped location, allowing only a small number of residents to view it at any one time. A large number of residents had to wait in the body of the library before getting access to the boards or to those staffing the consultation.

Consultation attendees have informed NAG that some of the responses by the staff at this consultation were not impressive. (For example, when a local resident made a point about the lack of parking in the town centre, the response was that the Council would just have to make it chargeable!)

This consultation process is an issue that is of great importance to the environment of the local community. We feel that the residents of Nailsea were let down by this very disorganized performance.