In this note I bring the latest news on the Five Year Land Supply and the Call in Procedure at Broadland District Council.
Might I ask clerks to copy this to all members and if possible attach my note on call ins on your web site
The Five Year Land Supply
Many will know that Broadland District Council has updated its performance targets and perhaps for the first time is able to demonstrate a Five Year Land Supply across the board.
Those within the Norwich Policy Area (as was) know full well that failure to achieve the target requirements introduced two adverse consequences.
First the goalposts were artificially moved by adding a percentage makeweight to the target requirements for persistent underachievers. This is now gone.
Second the NPPF – National Planning Policy Framework document – directed that planning policies for underachievers were/are deemed to be out of date. The effect was that regardless of local plan policies (ie the Joint Core Strategy) carpetbagger developers were able to secure permissions not otherwise achievable. Blofield Brundall Hemblington and Hethersett have suffered particularly.
This is no longer true. Since we now have a Five Year Land Supply – planners concede an oversupply (!) of 8.08 years – our local plan (the JCS) will apply across this Ward. Recently you have had the opportunity to vote on the proposals for the Greater Norwich Development Plan which will in time replace the JCS
The effect of this important development was demonstrated at the Planning committee meeting on 28th March in respect of an application relating to eight dwellings in Blofield Corner Road.
The Committee had previously resolved to approve the application. I opposed. The Committee had little choice at the first hearing but to resolve to grant permission. The rules concerning the five year land supply – as they were then known required it that way.
When it came back to Committee on the 28th March Consent was refused, This was because we now have a Five Year Land Supply. Accordingly the policies in the JCS were able to apply.
This outcome is of equal relevance to outline planning permissions previously granted. They will lapse where detailed consent has not been obtained (I think within two years). If application is made for renewal JCS and/or the Neighbourhood Plan may defeat the application.
This is particularly good news for Blofield, Blofield Heath and Hemblington. I don’t think other parishes were greatly moved by the possible consequences – but it might have gone the other way. That did not happen so all is as before and all is well.
Report To Parishes – Spring 2018 Continued
Page 2 of 2
The Call In Procedure
The procedure in Broadland enables any district councillor to require a planning application to be determined
by the Planning Committee and not an officer. I am told a determination by committee increases the cost tenfold.
No matter.
Personally I expect to support any resident who requires a call in. The major difficulty in a successful request
is the time limit. Often when I am approached I find I am already out of time. The rules are opaque, not
widely known and discourage requests.
Changes can be made by the Standard Committee. The Committee is formed of elected district members and
co-opted parish members. At a recent meeting I attempted to secure transparency. I could not find one of the
members to support my proposed changes even though they were for their benefit.
In case it is of assistance the following note sets out my requirements when I am asked to seek a call in.
To meet BDC requirements
1. Have your planning consultant check with the Case Officer to ensure we are still in time. There are strict
time limits. Often when I am approached it is already too late.
2. Give thought to the reason I must give for my seeking the call in.
For my purposes
3. I would like to inspect the site with you or your advisors
4. Please confirm you or your advisors will speak at the planning committee meeting regardless of other
commitments that day
Also please
5. Confirm it would be acceptable for me to bring a member of the relevant local parish council to the site
inspection
Either in the case of an Applicant requesting a Call in
6. Say if you would be satisfied by a call in limited to where officers intend to refuse consent. I am told the
cost to the ratepayer of a planning hearing is ten times that of an officer determination. No matter.
However; it will save public money if you do not require a call in where they intend to grant consent
regardless.
Or in the case of an Opponent requesting a Call in
6. Say if you would be satisfied by a call in limited to where officers intend to grant consent. I am told the
cost to the ratepayer of a planning hearing is ten times that of an officer determination. No matter.
However; it will save public money if you do not require a call in where they intend to refuse consent
regardless.
While I am open to persuasion you will understand that in arranging a call in I do not necessarily agree with
the person requesting be (s)he applicant or opponent.
Frank O’Neill