Frankly the proposals were ill thought out, and to use that ugliest of word "unsound"
2 years later, its been researched, revised and redeposited. Now some emotive things have gone, but as a result of the evidence base (which you could say is much better - or designed to support certain proposals depending on your level of cynicism),the new version increases housing 4 fold in the settlement in question whilst reducing the nominal growth % but by virtue of its honesty has to accept and set out the actual need. The thoroughness (and not least the amount of actual evidence base) is potentially much harder to challenge. And rightly so to get past PINS.
But, I had telecon today with a previous objector; a well to do man, who has I'm sure a decent amount of wedge to pay for reasonable levels of professional advice show he choose. Having seemingly won the previous battle he felt so disillusioned with a process that seemed to so change the balance "against" his community.
Even more so, when the town council call a meeting to discuss it the LPA wont even send an officer to discuss proposals. Evidently they feel it might show anti-development fervour and give a voice to the dissenters which might be unpleasant for officers!! Perhaps that should go with the territory eh? Should we as professionals not be facing up to the community we seek to change?
Readers know previous expressed dubious views on Nocalism here (Ezer is SO not anti-development) but I wonder whether nameless council is open to criticism on soundness for not engaging its community at best and at worst an RTPI censure worthy dereliction of professional obligation or when faced with a challenge to deliver, we are really seeing the reality of planning as it actually happens.
thoughts on a postcard