There are inaccuracies in the document:
‘Representations received – 7 i – page 2’
For clarity, it might be helpful to denote direct quotations – for example ‘affluent NIMBY’s’.
’12 Objections to the area – 7b – page 2′
We acknowledge you need to record the facts, but for clarification, the proposed Thornhills Green Belt Housing Allocation was excluded because this was identified in the clearest possible terms as a solution to the problem on the very clear written advice of the Council – see documents attached and comments below in respect of paragraph 16 – therefore statement 7 b considered in isolation could be viewed as disingenuous.
‘Prospective Forum – 13 – page 4’
With 56 supportive comments (as acknowledged in 6a-Representations received), the representations were ‘overwhelmingly’ supportive of our application, rather than generally
‘Area to be designated – 15 – page 4’
Our application excluded the strategic site because that was the advice in four Council documents rejecting our initial application.
‘Area to be designated – 16 – page 4’
We reject the assertion that we could have made a case for including the strategic site considering previous Council correspondence on the boundary.
In the Council’s record of the delegated decision to refuse the Forum’s original application, it was stated at paragraph 32 that a solution would be “The exclusion of the Thornhills Lane Garden Suburb from the potential area”.
To come to an informed view as to whether to challenge that position, in an email dated 2nd February 2018, I asked you the question “A point of clarity, you say that we would not be able to include what is now being called the Thornhill Garden Suburb? If this is correct would you, please explain the logic behind this.”
In reply you stated “Whilst the people of Clifton have a clear interest in the manner in which any development would go forward on the potentially allocated land, and would hopefully become fully involved in the master planning of the area, if it were to be allocated in the Local Plan, it was considered inappropriate for this land to be designated for neighbourhood planning purposes. Strategic sites require a wide range of background studies and detailed consideration, which a Neighbourhood Forum and Plan would find difficult to undertake. The Council commissions work to understand these issues and the promoters of the sites will be bringing forward additional work which a Neighbourhood Forum would find difficult to fund.”
Despite such clear, determined and deep-seated resistance on the part of the Council to the inclusion of the Thornhills Housing Allocation within the Forum’s area, the Council is now seeking to criticise the Forum for not including the Housing Allocation. This is at best inconsistent and in our view is disingenuous.
‘Area to be designated – 17 – page 4’
Unfortunately, we do not currently have the mandate to review the boundary, it would be for an Extraordinary General Meeting to consider this
‘Area to be considered – 18 – page 4’
Our position, and constitution, was made clear in our re-application and we have no control (nor should we) over comments submitted; we are clear in our objectives and see no value in the superfluous comments made around the motivation of respondents in this section; we note the observations about current housing allocations in our area and offer no comment. This should not be seen as in any way an acceptance of or agreement with these comments.
‘Area to be considered – 19 -page 4’
The Council discharged their duty in providing the maps, and our selection was overwhelmingly endorsed by the Forum, based on the available facts – including previous Council correspondence. This included the fact that although the Council had provided options, it had stated unequivocally in respect of the option which included the Thornhills Housing Allocation that it was considered inappropriate for this land to be designated for neighbourhood planning purposes.
‘Area to be considered – 20 – page 4’
We note the commentary about possible objections had we included the strategic site in our application; based on a previous written submission from Quod planning (a scheme promoter) and the Council’s correspondence, we are firmly of the view that our application would have been challenged and the Council had already made very clear its position against the inclusion of the allocation.