Broadland & South Norfolk Custom and Self-Build Housing SPD

Whilst it is recognised that 4.5 has been lifted from the PPG, for the purposes of the SPD, the meaning of ‘off-plan housing’ and ‘the plan stage’ warrants clear definition as they are ambiguous terms. The term ‘custom build’ as defined in the GNLP, arguably could apply to homes purchased at the ‘plan stage’, as this allows for a more ‘hands-off approach’ whereby the occupant instructs a builder to carry out the works on their behalf.

5.9 - There is an inconsistency here that will cause problems at the application determination stage and requires attention. 8.25 rightly states that in the case of outline applications, conditions will be applied to the permission, and the eligibility test will be used at reserved matters stage, which is sensible. 5.9 suggests otherwise. The document needs to be amended to make this clearer, or outline applications will be wrongfully refused when landowners, developers etc apply for outline planning permission for self and custom build schemes.
Suggested wording: ‘In the case of a full or reserved matters application, for a scheme to be acceptable, applicants will need to demonstrate that they fulfil the criteria in paragraph 5.7 above even if they have not formally joined the register. For outline applications, no such test will be required, but conditions will be applied to the planning permission to ensure that the plots can only be developed by self or custom builders, with the test applied at the reserved matters stage’.
‘authorities’ should be amended to ‘authority’s’.

6.2 - This is an excellent resource that should be made publicly available at all times in an anonymised form. Contact details should also be provided within the SPD to make it easier for stakeholders to access the register.

7.1 - Whilst we would agree that early engagement with the Council is preferable, the pre-application service is extremely slow, and became so congested in 2024 that it had to be suspended for several months. It is therefore unrealistic to expect applicants for small schemes to engage in the pre-app service, as it is uneconomical and not a good use of the Council’s resources. Arguably, the SPD, if worded correctly, should reduce the need for pre-application advice in any case.

7.2 - There is an inconsistency here that will cause problems at the application determination stage and requires attention. 8.25 rightly states that in the case of outline applications, conditions will be applied to the permission, and the eligibility test will be used at reserved matters stage, which is sensible. 7.2 suggests otherwise. The document needs to be amended to make this clearer, or outline applications will be wrongfully refused when landowners, developers etc apply for outline planning permission for self and custom build schemes.
Suggested wording: ‘In the case of a full or reserved matters application, for a scheme to be acceptable, applicants will need to demonstrate that they fulfil the criteria in paragraph 5.7 above even if they have not formally joined the register. For outline applications, no such test will be required, but conditions will be applied to the planning permission to ensure that the plots can only be developed by self or custom builders, with the test applied at the reserved matters stage’.

8.24 - : It is agreed that this is necessary, though as per our previous comments, we would stress that the condition in this case applies to the occupant, not the applicant. The use of conditions and S106 agreements guarantees that the occupant will be a self-builder, reducing the need for concern over whom the applicant is, certainly in the case of outline applications.

There is an inconsistency here that will cause problems at the application determination stage and requires attention. 8.25 rightly states that in the case of outline applications, conditions will be applied to the permission, and the eligibility test will be used at reserved matters stage, which is sensible. 7.2 and 5.9 suggest otherwise. The document needs to be amended to make this clearer, or outline applications will be wrongfully refused when landowners, developers etc apply for outline planning permission for self and custom build schemes.
Suggested wording: ‘In the case of a full or reserved matters application, for a scheme to be acceptable, applicants will need to demonstrate that they fulfil the criteria in paragraph 5.7 above even if they have not formally joined the register. For outline applications, no such test will be required, but conditions will be applied to the planning permission to ensure that the plots can only be developed by self or custom builders, with the test applied at the reserved matters stage’

8.32 - We would contend that it is unnecessary to resort to the use of irrelevant dictionary definitions of words which feature in the NPPF in order to prevent rural development. The definition cited here does not naturally lead to a conclusion that a purely residential area lacks vitality by definition. It is a noun that usually applies to living beings, not places, and more appropriate definitions in the context of places range from ‘the property of being able to survive and grow’; ‘the capacity to live, grow or develop’ or ‘the power to endure or survive’. Many purely residential areas are abundant in vitality, particularly if there is a common green space or front gardens which allow residents to meet one another. 7.5 is worded in a way to allow the development of self-build plots in areas outside of settlement boundaries. Most rural settlements with services (i.e. school, church, shop, pub) have a settlement boundary, so applying 8.32 as currently worded would undermine that element of the policy. 8.32 should be removed as it does not add any helpful interpretation of 7.5.

‘Less good accessibility’ should be amended to ‘poorer accessibility’