Representation Form for Development Plan Documents

Name of the DPD to which this representation relates:

Section 1. Personal Details

If an agent is appointed, please complete only the Title and Name boxes below but complete the full contact details of the agent in section 2.

Title: First Name: Last Name: Job Title (where relevant): Organisation (where relevant): Address Line 1: Line 2: Line 3: Line 4: Postcode: Telephone Number: Email Address (where relevant):

Section 2. Agent Details (if applicable) Title: First Name: Last Name: Job Title (where relevant): Organisation (where relevant): Address Line 1: Line 2: Line 3: Line 4: Postcode: Telephone Number: Email Address (where relevant):

Section 3.

Did you raise the matter that is the subject of your representation with the LPA earlier in the process of the preparation of the DPD, ie before it was submitted for examination?

No Yes (at issues and alternative options stage) Yes (at preferred options stage) If 'No', can you briefly explain why you did not do so:

Section 4.

Do you consider the DPD is :

Sound¹ Go to Qu.5 (ie you support the DPD) Unsound Go to Qu.4.(b) (ie you consider the DPD should be changed)

¹Sound may be considered in this context within its ordinary meaning of "showing good judgement" and "able to be trusted" and within the context of fulfilling the expectations of legislation

Section 4b.

If you consider the DPD is unsound, please identify which test of soundness your representation relates to (having regard to test numbers 1-9 listed in the Annex). Please note you should complete a separate form for each test you consider the development plan document fails.

Soundness Test no. (see annex):

Section 5.

To which part of the DPD does your representation relate?

Paragraph: Policy: Proposals Map:

Section 6. Please give details of what change(s) you consider necessary to make the DPD sound, having regard to the test you have identified at 4. above. You will need to say why this change will make the DPD sound. Please be as precise as possible.

Please note your representation should cover succinctly all the information, evidence and supporting information necessary to support/justify the representation and the suggested change, as there will not normally be a subsequent opportunity to make further representations based on the original representation. After this stage, further submissions will be only at the request of the Inspector, based on the matters and issues he/she identifies for examination

Section 7.

Can your representation seeking a change be considered by written representations or do you consider it necessary to participate at the oral part of the examination?

Written representations Participate at the oral examination

Section 8. If you wish to participate at the oral part of the examination, please outline why you consider this to be necessary:

Annex: Failure to meet a Soundness Test

1	It has not been prepared in accordance with the authority's Local Development Scheme (LDS).
2	A	It has not been prepared in compliance with the Statement of Community involvement (SCI).
	B	Where no SCI exists, it has not been prepared in accordance with the minimum requirements of the Town and Country Planning (Local Development) (England) Regulations 2004.
3	The plan and its policies have not been subject to sustainability appraisal.
4	A	It is not a spatial plan, or it has not properly had regard to any other relevant plans, policies and strategies relating to the area or to adjoining areas.
	B	It is inconsistent with national planning policy.
	C	It is not in general conformity with the regional spatial strategy (or spatial development strategy in London).
5	It does not have regard to the authority's community strategy.
6	The strategies/policies/allocations in the plan are not coherent and consistent within and between Development Plan Documents (DPDs) prepared by the authority and by neighbouring authorities, where cross boundary issues are relevant.
7	The strategies/policies/allocations fail to represent the most appropriate in all the circumstances, having considered the relevant alternatives, and they are not founded on a robust and credible evidence base.
8	There are no clear mechanisms for implementation and monitoring.
9	The plan is not reasonably flexible to enable it to deal with changing circumstances.