Dear Sir
Readers will by now have received the latest consultation questionnaire on the Great Aycliffe Neighbourhood Plan (GANP). I am one of the very few volunteer residents who have participated in the ‘thematic group’ meetings taking feedback from the initial questionnaires to the present stage.
The process has taken an inordinate amount of Council officer, councillor and public time, and has no doubt cost the taxpayer a lot of money. Although I have been impressed with the quality and commitment of the people involved, and I think there is some value in the GANP, it has become abundantly clear that by far the more important documents for the town are the National Planning Policy Framework and County Plan.
As is stated in the current questionnaire, a lot of points raised in the initial round could not be taken forward, because the GANP must comply with these other documents. Possibly the most significant point of all is that there were a lot of comments made (despite the fact that this question wasn’t even asked!) to indicate that residents do not want the town to have a lot more urban sprawl, but this is not within the remit of the GANP. In fact, there is not much that seems to be within the remit of the GANP!
It is also interesting to notice that, in response to the question ‘Are there areas of land suitable for housing?’, only 5 respondents mention Copelaw, and the same number said Aycliffe Village, but we have responded by proposing to protect only Aycliffe Village from urban sprawl! However, I understand Copelaw is already earmarked for housing, whether the public likes it or not. By comparison,the Southern Club was the most popular, with 37 respondents, then Horndale Club with 22 and Elmfield School with 19. Interestingly, 19 respondents said ‘none’! Copelaw ranked joint 16th! What does this tell us about the County Council’s disregard for, or unawareness of, the wishes of the public?
As for the County Plan, readers may recall that the draft version, which took years to develop and cost the taxpayers a fortune, was ripped to pieces by the independent inspector, Harold Stephens, much to the displeasure of the County Council, who were adamant that they were right and he was wrong. They then instigated a judicial review (presumably at significant cost to the taxpayer) and were euphoric when this resulted essentially in a re-inspection, on the assumption the re-inspection will reach different conclusions.
Mr Stephens’ report is heavy reading, but in the key point of his summary he wrote that the ‘assessment of housing need’ was ‘too high’, because of ‘unrealistic assumptions about jobs growth and associated in-migration’, as well as, essentially, over-optimistic calculation methods. He goes on to thoroughly and logically explain his reasons.
Mr Stephens does support ‘proportionally more of the development’ in larger towns such as Durham City, Bishop Auckland and Newton Aycliffe, which seems fair enough, but he also favours re-development of run down areas such as various pit villages, rather than building on green sites.
Mr Stephens refers to concerns that ‘DCC has constructed an elaborate and costly consultation exercise with little evidence of willingness to respond positively to contrary views or to simplify the process to encourage genuine public engagement’.
I sympathise with those views. It seems that much more genuine effort has been made to involve the public in the GANP than with the infinitely more important and influential County Plan, and that is disappointing.
It is also disappointing that the County Council seems unable to respond appropriately to constructive criticism.
John Snowball
jsnow96980@aol.com