Object

Representation ID: 17046

Received: 20/09/2021

Respondent: Friends of Sheepwash Nature Reserve

Firstly, we would like to comment that this consultation has been very poorly communicated to the general public, and there is the feeling that there has already been a “done deal” between politicians, planners and developers in making this document oppressive and littered with local authority jargon, as to put people off even commenting. Indeed it is this “political-construction industry complex” that is the reason for perceived corruption, and terms such as “developer’s charter” being accurately used. We were totally against the Government white paper on planning reform for this reason, and also made those views known in that consultation. We should not be regarded as a “growth area” for housing developers to continue to prosper, particularly when it is revealed that so many of them are party political donors.
The site allocations in this document are the only matter that most people are interested in, and not the dogmatic policy waffle which fills out this report. A simpler comment on the call for sites and site allocations should have been promoted, and this would have generated more responses.
As it is, it is quite apparent that the majority of responses that will be received will be from green belt land bankers and their stooges, promoted by certain politicians who have already made themselves known with their “save the green belt” campaigns. Meanwhile, the urban areas are targeted by developers, and this green space is usurped as “brownfield” , yet it has the same potential for wildlife rehabilitation as any “greenbelt” land through the process of rewilding.