Norfolk Broads: How police ended up involved in planning row

A four-year row about whether correct procedures were followed when considering two "minor" planning applications for piling work on a remote riverbank has finally come to an end... with a ruling that there was no significant wrongdoing. 

The extraordinary saga - which even sparked a police investigation - centred on the handling of two applications relating to work on a 126m stretch along the New Cut, near Haddiscoe. 

It led to rancorous accusations that Broads Authority (BA) officials had concealed important information about the issue and deliberately cut members of the authority out of the decision-making process. 

The complex case started in 2019 when the Environment Agency submitted a planning application to the authority to carry out piling work - to strengthen the riverbank - along the stretch of the New Cut, the waterway connecting the Yare and Waveney rivers. 

That application was decided upon by BA planning officers, who imposed a condition that once the work was completed the piled riverbank could not be used as a mooring spot for boats. 

However, several BA members had asked for the issue to be decided by a planning committee, rather than by officials. 

The following year, the landowner lodged another application with the BA, asking that the authority's conditions relating to the riverbank were removed. 

Officials agreed to do so, without the authority's members being asked for their views. 

By this stage, members of the authority had raised concerns about the way that the applications had been decided without their involvement. 

John Fuller, the leader of South Norfolk Council - the authority which covers the Haddiscoe riverbank - also got involved, complaining to the BA that proper procedures had not been followed. 

John Fuller (Image: © Rose Sapey)

Unhappy with the response he got from the authority, he lodged a complaint with Norfolk Constabulary and officers were assigned to investigate the issue. 

Two years ago, they concluded that nothing criminal had taken place - although they did say the behaviour of some planning officers "appears to be obstructive, unreasonable and, at times, bizarre".

However, that was not the end of it. 

The BA and Defra - the government body which oversees it - commissioned an independent review by a law firm.

That review has now ended, finally bringing the matter to a close.

The law firm's report into the affair, published this month, set out 14 findings and a series of recommendations for how the authority can learn from the experience.

However, it concluded that the decision-making over the two planning applications was "not an unlawful act" and that any errors were "minor in nature". 

It found no evidence to support Mr Fuller’s allegation that the BA’s planning procedures were not fit for purpose, and said the "minor" nature of the issue meant it was "inappropriate" to raise such serious allegations.

It said suggestions there were "significant fundamental problems" at the authority were “completely incorrect”.

The comments from the police were also criticised. 

“The alleged mishandling of these minor planning applications clearly did not meet the test of serious misconduct and was an inappropriate vehicle for raising such governance matters," the report said.

“The comments made by the police officer on governance matters at the authority should not have been made.”  

The report's recommendations include a review of how applications were brought to committees and about the complaints process.

IS IT REALLY OVER? 

After three years, a police investigation and an independent review, the "minor" issue appears resolved. 

The recommendations of the report received near unanimous support from Broads Authority members. 

One member said: "I welcome the report, I think it puts us in the right place, which is how we work together and work as an authority on our governance. 

"It is clear that the case, the planning operations of this body were undertaken [correctly] not everything was perfect but it certainly wasn't approaching misconduct levels."  

But not everyone was happy. 

James Knight, a member of the authority and a colleague of John Fuller on South Norfolk Council, voted against the report. 

James Knight (Image: James Knight)