One of the things that Broadland District Council did after our successful High Court
hearing was to employ the services of a management consultant to undertake a
review of the process they used prior to the court case with a view to improving this
process.
The review found that the process, both at BDC and GNDP, was “INFECTED”. Their
words not ours. The definitions of infect, if you ignore the clinical variation, uses
words like: to taint, pollute or contaminated. BDC glossed over this report at their
Council Meeting.
However it would be normal to think that they would have taken heed of the findings
of the report that they commissioned themselves. It seems not as the process used
to remedy the remitted parts of the Joint Core Strategy (JCS) has several process
errors as follows:
• The original consultation for this phase of the JCS was due to close on
Monday 8th Oct 2012. However as they forgot to include Appendix 6 in one
of the documents supporting the proposed submission, PSJCS2 they had to
extend the consultation period until Friday 2nd Nov. Their admission to this
error is here: http://www.gndp.org.uk/our-work/joint-core-strategy/
• When prospective consultees enter the website they are directed
straight to the Representation Form covering letter seen here http:/
/www.gndp.org.uk/content/wp-content/uploads/downloads/2012/10/
RepresentationFormFinalN.doc. However up until Monday 29th Oct 2012 the
date for the return of the form was still showing Monday 8th Oct 2012. We
therefore have no idea how many people would have accessed this form
in those 21 days and then not proceeded as they would have thought they
were too late! It took a member of SNUB to point this out to GNDP who then
promptly changed the date!
• One of the key documents (Joint Core Strategy for Broadland, Norwich and
South Norfolk (Ref No: PSJCS2) has over 100 pages but no page numbers
making it difficult if not impossible to navigate through.
• The document entitled Regulation 19 Publication and Sustainability Appraisal
Consultation (Document ref: PSJCS 1) has a loose-leaf amendment to
paragraph 6.3 on Page 5 where reference to the NPPF Compatibility Self
Assessment Checklist has been omitted.
These errors and omissions do not provide the necessary confidence that lessons
have been learnt from their review of their own process and that the process is still
infected. Is it time someone was held to account for these silly errors?
Silly errors.........or more smoke and mirrors.??
ReplyDeleteI thought the Judgement was that we as RESIDENTS had to be consulted. As a pensioner with no internet no one from Broadland has consulted me yet. Surely this must be a comtempt of Court by our District who refuses to listen to us. I am disgusted at their behaviour but their Developer friends must be delighted.
ReplyDeleteDear Broadland Resident,
ReplyDeleteHow did you create you post?
The whole basis for the JCS was to provide a joint approach to development. What has happened is that Broadland has pursued a separate agenda and created trouble for the other partners in the process. If they had not been so arrogant we would not have the unedifying spectacle of South Norfolk Councillors exhorting residents to write supporting the present Broadland Plan simply because they are terrified that more houses might end up in their bailiwick.
ReplyDeleteThey dare not say the numbers are already too high because they are all desperate for the income (CIL COUNCIL TAX and NEW HOMES BONUS) Actually the numbers are too high and the time span for this commitment is too great.
Meanwhile their record in providing affordable homes is way short of their commitment. There is not a shortage of affordable homes there is a shortage of money available to buy them. The latest gambit is that Norwich City Council is going to build Council Houses..... so where is that financing coming from. Note that CIL is not payable on this type of housing.
The whole strategy is a massive cock-up but they are still intent on fudging it. I think the section on land values in the SNUB submission really highlights the paucity of their concept.
Finally, you only need to look at the submissios the Councils made at the High Court to see that they have not been able to properly consider alternatives
Easy answer to your question we are lucky in having Grandchildren who are willing thelp us occasionally as we do NOT have our own internet link. Sadly some pensioners cannot afford all this modern gear, but we still think we should be consulted.
ReplyDeleteThe leader and his deputy at Broadland don't consult their fellow councillors either so why would they consider consulting us the public. The leader's motto is "Pay your rates and shut up, We run the council and we know what's best for you".
ReplyDeleteWhen are the Broadland Councillors going to obey the Judges ruling and consult with us THE RESIDENTS on the fourteen options for the JCS. Perhaps now they have returned from their "jolly" in DUBAI in a five star hotel (no prizes collected) that they will feel well enough to start to consult with us. Whoever thought the 7 day holiday in Dubai was good value for the Broadland taxpayers. Just shows how totally out of touch they have become.
ReplyDelete