Change to wording of draft Broads Authority document questioned
- Credit: Archant
A change of wording to a draft Broads Authority Duty to Cooperate Statement was questioned at a planning committee meeting.
South Norfolk Council member Vic Thomson pointed out on Friday that a number of changes had been made to the new draft document when compared to the previous version.
In particular, he raised concerns over the changing of a sentence from the 2016 document which read:
'Each of the six districts and two county councils have representation at the planning committee by virtue of one of their Broads Authority appointed Members.'
The new document reads:
'A number of the local authority appointed members sit on the planning committee.'
Mr Thomson had, at an annual meeting of the Broads Authority on July 28, proposed that all district council appointed members of the Broads Authority should be included on the planning committee.
- 1 Doctors baffled by teenager's horrific long Covid symptoms
- 2 'Once in a lifetime catch' - man lands monster fish in Norfolk
- 3 Norfolk man amongst UK's 12 most wanted
- 4 Council leader arrested after suspected drink driving on Christmas Day
- 5 Pub near Dereham has its first winners of steak-eating challenge
- 6 Norfolk village named among poshest places to live in the UK
- 7 Man threatened to petrol bomb ex-partner's home
- 8 Revealed: Travelodge behind multi-million pound hotel development
- 9 Couple explores Norfolk homes in Escape to the Country
- 10 MAPPED: Where thousands of homes could be built in north Norfolk
He said local authority members represented districts that were also influenced by Broads Authority planning.
However, the proposal was thwarted after some members opposed it. Sarah Mukherjee, a secretary of state appointee, had proposed an amendment saying the matter should form part of the overall governance review.
The amendment was later passed.
Broadland District Council member Lana Hempsall was removed from the planning committee last year following disagreements over a village phone box and never reappointed. Since then the district council has not been represented in any planning matters.
Speaking at the meeting about the alteration, Mr Thomson said: 'That's quite a difference and personally I'm not very happy about that change.'
Planning committee chairman Sir Peter Dixon said they were aware of Mr Thomson's unhappiness, but the authority 'had made a decision and I think we should leave it there'.
But Mr Thomson responded by saying the document was still in draft form so no decision had been made.
'This has to come back to the membership to ratify it,' he said.
Sir Peter then conceded that the matter would be brought before the full membership at a later date.