BASILDON BOROUGH LOCAL PLAN CORE STRATEGY REVISED PREFERRED OPTIONS REPORT MISTAKES
Probably the most important document for Basildon Council in the last 50 years is, or will be, the Local Plan Core Strategy. It is meant to be the most important thing until 2031.
It is revealing that our council has been too slow and also too hasty in drawing it up. The Plan runs from 2011 and the original consultations ended on 11 April 2012. As expected, adjustments and revisions had to be made. In November 2012 the council threw out their old Plan and started another. It wasn’t until 20 January 2014 that they had the documents ready to consult us on their new plans. These consultations ended on 1 April 2014, so they have lost almost two years.
You would have thought that they would take the necessary care with the lead document before setting it before the public.
The Basildon Borough Local Plan Core Strategy Revised Preferred Options was published
for Cabinet on 18 December 2013 and Full Council on 19 December 2013, where it was
resolved to approve the document for public consultation. Following the publication of
the Core Strategy Revised Preferred Options, some modifications were required for
accuracy, clarity and readability. They say the modifications were made before the consultation began on the 20 January 2013 (sic)!
It is revealing that it is an addendum with 84 corrections to the plan’s 174 pages. Here are some of the best:-
It starts withPage 1 word 1 ‘Foreward’ should read ‘Foreword’one word in and already 12.5% wrong.Page 4 Para 1.1.11 ‘Complaint‘ should read ‘compliant’you can see they were already expecting it not to be compliant but to provoke complaints.Page 24, Para 3.1.5 Building on the findings of the sub-regional SHMA, the Council has looked further at the Basildon Borough's specific socio-economic needs and demands.This means they have doubled the number of houses they thought we needed and added 3,000 for good measure.Page 25 Para 3.1.8 (first paragraph) ‘Paragraph 18’ should read ‘Paragraph 20’good to see they know what they are on about. Page 27 Text Para 4.1.1. (last sentence) Delete ‘should’ between ‘Local Planning Authorities’ and ‘look beyond’as we all know Local Planning Authorities always do what they should! Page 27 Text box ‘fifteen’ should read ‘thirteen’hope you spotted that one.Page 27 Text box proceeding para 4.1.1. Spatial Option 2A third line‘8,500 new jobs’ should read ‘8,600 new jobs’that’s better. Page 27 Text box proceeding para 4.1.1. Spatial Option 2A third para‘previously developed and’ should read ‘previously developed land’when they say “procededing” they probably mean “preceding” but these corrections are something to build on. Page 27 Text boxproceeding para 4.1.1.Spatial Option 2A sixthparaInsert ‘less’ between ‘settlements would have’ and ‘access to’an important difference if you live there.Page 50, PADC 5, text box The content under the sub-headings ‘use’ and ‘key objectives’ should both state ‘At least 2,300 homes and at least 5.5ha of B Class employment land’ rather than ‘up to 2,300 homes and up to 5.5ha…’what are the ‘at most’ figures Page 50, PADC 5, text boxInsert a footnote after the reference to IDP to state ‘The IDP will be available following the pre-submission stage of the Core Strategy in relation to all PADCs’this one accounts for many of the corrections as they have consistently forgotten to mention it. The IDP is the Infrastructure Delivery Plan.
Page 51, PADC 5, text box, under ‘Infrastructure Requirements’The content under the sub-headings ‘Use’ and ‘Key Objectives’ should both state ‘At least 2,000 homes and at least 5.5ha of B Class employment land’ rather than up to 2,000 homes and at least 5.5haso it is more.Page 54, PADC 6, text box The content under the sub-headings ‘Use’ and ‘Key Objectives’ should both state ‘At least 2,000 homes and at least 5.5ha of B Class employment land’ rather than ‘up to 2,000 homes and up to 5.5ha…’upwards and onwards.Page 63, PADC 9, text Paragraphs titled ‘Use’ and ‘Key Objectives’ should state ‘At least 150 homes’ rather than ‘up to 150 homes’worse.Page 65, PADC 10, text box The content under the sub-headings ‘Use’ and ‘Key Objectives’ should both state ‘At least 760 homes’rather than ‘up to 760 homes’and worse.Page 66, PADC10, text box, under 'Physical Requirements' Overhead powerlines run north to south east to west for clarityif you can see where we are going. Page 68, PADC11, text box The content under the sub-headings ‘Use’ and ‘Key Objectives’ should both state ‘At least 220 homes’ rather than ‘up to 220 homes’and more. Page 68 PADC 11 Key objectives paragraph Affordable housing percentage should be 36 not 40.This lets the developers make bigger profits rather than meeting the social needs of the people. PADC 12, Page 71, Text box The content under the sub-headings ‘Use’ and ‘Key Objectives’ should both state ‘At least 620 homes’ rather than ‘up to 620 homes’and still more. PADC13, Page 74, text box The content under the sub-headings ‘Use’ and ‘Key Objectives’ should both state ‘At least 180 homes’ rather than ‘up to 180 homes’but “up to” would be more reassuring PADC 14, page 77, text box The content under the sub-headings ‘Use’ and ‘Key Objectives’ should both state ‘At least 430 homes’ rather than ‘up to 430 homes’strange how often they make this mistake in this direction and not once in the other. Page 122 Reason for rejection should read ‘The protection of the Borough’s heritage assets was not incorporated in to the previous version of the policy.’You mean it is now? Page 174 Appendix E Reference to PADC ‘Billericay Western For consistency Expansion Zone’ should read ‘Billericay West Deferred Area of Search’There’s nothing like a bit of consistency.
Having got all 84 corrections it should be a doddle to put them right but,sadly, they tell us the page numbers referenced in this document may differ to those in the Local Plan Core Strategy Revised Preferred Option Report published due to the addition of the Cabinet Member for Planning, Councillor Richard Moore's foreword and the question set.
How many mistakes did they not notice? It looks like the sort of thing that happens when there is an indecent haste and slap-dash is better than correct.
If they can make this many mistakes in the most important document, think how easy it would be to let an error in on the estimations for the “objectively assessed needs”, that they claim justify the switch they made in the last year from 16,000 instead of 6,500 houses and 49 instead of 6 hectares of new employment land.
It is clear enough that they must revise again and prefer other options.
For more go to Action Group 2014