"The court considered two alleged failures to subject the draft core strategy
to proper environmental assessment. Mr Justice Ouseley upheld one of the
grounds, finding that the local planning authorities had failed to properly
consider alternatives to growth in the north-east "growth triangle" designated
in the strategy during the strategic environmental assessment (SEA) process.
While an order specifying exactly what the judge wants the partnership to do
to rectify the situation was still awaited at the time of going to press, he
made it clear that he is not proposing to quash the whole strategy. Instead, he
is requiring reconsideration of Broadland's housing strategy, including the need
for another SEA and public consultation, before the core strategy is put back
before an inspector for further public examination.
It is clear that Broadland's housing strategy is being sent back to the start
of the process, throwing the council's five-year land supply figures into chaos
and inevitably halting progress on its site allocations development plan
document. The timing could not be worse for Broadland District Council, which is
likely to see a number of opportunistic applications to develop land outside its
preferred growth zone under the presumption in favour of sustainable
development.
But can Broadland's housing strategy be reconsidered without affecting the
rest of the strategy? The answer surely must be no. It is hard to see how proper
consideration of the alternatives to growth being accommodated in the north-east
triangle can exclude the possibility of some or all of that growth being
reallocated to Norwich city or South Norfolk district.
The situation will be further complicated by the fact that the government is
likely to have abolished the East of England regional strategy by the time this
issue comes back to public examination. This presumably opens the way for
opponents of growth to argue that a lower level of growth overall is more
appropriate, again potentially affecting the whole joint core strategy area
rather than just Broadland.
One local authority officer described the core strategy as being like a cake
from which the judge has cut a slice away but left the rest intact. The fear
must be that it is more like a wobbly jelly that threatens to lose all
structural integrity as soon as the first spoonful is removed."
So not quite such a minor a problem the Leader of Broadland District Council would like the populace to believe!
You know I still can't find a proper SEA at all for the entire Norfolk Area. An example of an attempt to do an SEA properly is here
ReplyDeletehttp://www.nottinghamshire.gov.uk/greaternottinghamsea-environmentalreport.pdf
There is no document that I can find on the GNDP site or the site of any Norfolk council, that fulfils the requirements of Schedule 1 and Schedule 2 of the Environmental Assessment Regulations 2004. But it is only by finding examples of where it has been done properly, or at least a little bit properly, that this can be proved.
I don't really understand why the High Court judge did not pick more holes in the document purporting to be an SEA than he did. But judges are not infallible and I wouldn't blame any judge who finds themselves at SEA (ha ha) with the S.E.A. legislation.
Interesting - this is the same Trevor Ivory who is a Tory Councillor in North Norfolk and parliamentay candidate. Obviously doesn't think much of his Broadland colleagues
ReplyDelete