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
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
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:/
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?