Meeting documents

Charles Stirton on behalf of Sam Elwin, Norfolk Crescent Green Residents' Association.

As Sam Elwin is ill, she has asked me to read her statement.

Thank you for listening to our speeches. We trust that you will be able to take into consideration the issues we have raised and that further amendments to the SPD can be made to take account of them.

You may find it surprising that we have brought these to your attention at this late time. There are good reasons for this.

It is unfortunate that before and during the formal consultation period there was no active engagement with our community. Such consultation would have seemed reasonable to expect given the proximity of the new development to our significant group of historic buildings and the major impact it would have upon them and our community. Although we subsequently sought informal consultation on the SPD, our requests were not responded to until just recently. We are very grateful for your attention.

However, it seems that opportunities for any further amendments may now be limited because of amendment 23 in Appendix A of the current report, where it is stated that a full schedule of material changes was agreed at the October 2006 Council Executive. This was not made apparent then, and the absence of any reference in the minutes, or the appendix at that time, would seem to confirm that this is retrospective.

Many amendments have been now made to the SPD. A revised Appendix 2 of the Proposed Changes was circulated in the Council Chamber at the October 2006 Executive meeting. This allowed no opportunity for comment. New amendments to many of those changes have now been made, as well as additional amendments introduced by Appendix 1 of the current report. All of this has been without any formal consultation. Hence the SPD now being considered for adoption is substantially different to that formally consulted upon. Additionally, a number of studies, including the Strategic Flood Risk Assessment are currently proceeding, as detailed in the previous item on this agenda, the Core Strategy. These studies could have substantial implications for development in BWR East, as proposed by the SPD.

We consider that the SPD must be reviewed at the earliest opportunity as part of the Local Development Framework process to include all material changes before discussions with developers start for BWR East. This process should allow for further consultation, preferably formal, and to an agreed timetable. We urge that such a review should be scheduled at the latest this autumn to coincide with the next formal Core Strategy consultation.