A recent judgement by a Planning Inspector elsewhere has set a precedent about the way the 5 year Housing supply is calculated. So what I hear you say ?
Well, it would appear SNDC used the wrong method of the two on offer and we do NOT have a 5 year land supply, so this means developers can ask for Housing to be granted OUTSIDE the development boundary almost anywhere they like, until we have. It does not mean it will be granted of course, because other factors may come into play but it does mean the dice is loaded in favour at the off. The local Plan which has to be adopted in order to provide some Planning protections is therefore in jeopardy.
I also learned today that the Gypsy and Traveller strategy has been withdrawn from imminent discussion at South Norfolk with a view to adoption, as Govt guidance has changed and clarification is being sought. John Fuller ( SNDC Leader) was talking about this on the radio. It would appear that the 35 pitches identified ( somewhat controversally and in isolation from our partners Norwich and Broadland ) must now be reviewed.
The G and T association has described this change of Central Govt policy as discrimination.
Thank you for that information, it is very interesting.
Is there going to be some accountability held at South Norfolk with their process of identifying G&T pitches without its partner authorities? When were the public, gypsies and travellers going to be consulted on the location of these pitches?
What protection does a development boundary offer in Spooner Row anyway?
Regarding consultation, we have already consulted and I did respond , along with others, upsetting several Planners on the way. It was this Plan the Councillors were about to consider.
Whether they listened or took note is, at best, doubtful. Consultation is not affirmation. Our partner authorities said they had enough pitches already or did not need any more but South Norfolk appointed a private consultant firm, part headed up by the their old Gypsy Housing officer , Imogen Statham ,who had moved to this company ( I can prove this ) who astonishingly decided there was a need for more pitches.
As to where these sites and pitches appear is open to normal planning rules and to be frank, in my view, is subject to a very wishy washy and very easy set of criteria which is part of the G and T plan. It is expected private landowners will apply for these sites and South Norfolk are always in favour of the A11 corridor even though we have plenty already. Refresh me , where is Long Stratton again?
On your second point , once we have a Plan in place and a 5 year land Housing supply any development outside the development boundary is looked at very closely and unlikely to be granted unless very special circumstances apply. My cynical self wants to say lots more here but best not to say what you cannot prove.
My apologies if some see this discourse as biased but it is factual where facts can be proved. I have tried to make it clear where opinion is proferred.
A recent judgement by a Planning Inspector elsewhere has set a precedent about the way the 5 year Housing supply is calculated. So what I hear you say ?
Well, it would appear SNDC used the wrong method of the two on offer and we do NOT have a 5 year land supply, so this means developers can ask for Housing to be granted OUTSIDE the development boundary almost anywhere they like, until we have. It does not mean it will be granted of course, because other factors may come into play but it does mean the dice is loaded in favour at the off. The local Plan which has to be adopted in order to provide some Planning protections is therefore in jeopardy.
I also learned today that the Gypsy and Traveller strategy has been withdrawn from imminent discussion at South Norfolk with a view to adoption, as Govt guidance has changed and clarification is being sought. John Fuller ( SNDC Leader) was talking about this on the radio. It would appear that the 35 pitches identified ( somewhat controversally and in isolation from our partners Norwich and Broadland ) must now be reviewed.
The G and T association has described this change of Central Govt policy as discrimination.
It appears that development policies for local planning keep getting it wrong. A few years ago the 'G&T Development Policy Document' had to be dropped at the final stage as it was not up to the job. Now our council is NOT working with its partner councils for G&T pitches. For new house building, you say the wrong method for the 5 year land supply has been used. The Local Plan for development has taken years and still not finalised - it even had one major stage duplicated when landowners were asked for more land to be put forward, even though the council had told us previously that they already had more than enough sites for consideration. Has the Local Plan been conducted in a fair and honest way with local people and concerns adequately dealt with? If mistakes keep being made, HOW MUCH IS ALL THIS COSTING US?
