Prepared By The Market Research Group (MRG), Bournemouth University,

On Behalf Of
The Broads Authority.

In 2002, the Broads Authority undertook a Best Value Review of its Planning and Development service. As part of this review, a programme of consultation with local people and businesses was needed, to demonstrate the effect that the Authority’s planning work has on the built and natural environment, and the quality of life in the Broads and adjacent settlements

This report aimed to explore how different customer segments define ‘quality’ and the ‘quality’ of the outcomes of planning decisions made by the Department of Planning and Development, on the built, natural, working and living environment of the Broads.

More specifically, the project sought to achieve the following objectives :

• To discover whether local consumer groups understand the planning objectives of the Broads Authority.

• To identify the components of quality as perceived by different consumer groups.

• To identify potential shared values between the Authority, stakeholders, and other neighbouring authorities, and how these can be integrated into planning policy.

• To evaluate whether the planning process and the Broads Authority are perceived as delivering a high quality environment.

• To assess the level of satisfaction with the outcomes of the planning authority’s work across the Broads.

• To discover the perceived need for future development and economic regeneration in the Broads.

The following summary has been drawn from the research findings section of the report, and represents the main points brought forward by respondents.

• Most respondents recognised that the Broads Authority is responsible for navigation, recreation and conservation in the Broads.

• Respondents generally felt that the key function of the Broads Authority Planning Department is to sustain and enhance the Broads area for the future.

• Respondents recognised the importance of the natural environment, but felt that environmental protection should not be to the detriment of navigation, the economy or quality of living.

• The Broads Authority is seen as the central co-ordinator in maintaining a level of compromise between all stakeholder groups.

• Most respondents who had experience of planning across the districts, felt that there was some differentiation.

• Differentiation was mainly seen to be due to the differing objectives of the Authorities. Local Authorities were seen to have shorter-term targets, with primary concern for community infrastructure, whilst the Broads Authority was also concerned with the sustainability of the Broads environment.

• Respondents also felt there was some tendency for differentiation due to the nature of the area concerned, or the nature of the personalities involved in the application process.

• There was a good deal of support for the Broads Authority becoming more directly involved with planning in the Districts, however support for overall control was limited, due to current restrictions of finance and infrastructure, and the unrepresentative status of the Authority.

• A high quality environment was defined as one which maintained the natural environment of the area, whilst also enabling quality development in order to support the local economy and communities.

• There was particular concern that a high quality environment should support the needs of all users, and preserve the special character of the area for the future.
• Respondents felt that the area’s special character was achieved through the blending of man-made development (the Broads, windmills and agriculture), with the natural environment, to create a beautiful and unique open landscape, with ideal sailing conditions.

• It was generally felt that the Broads Authority is working to provide a high quality environment, and encourage quality design. Improvements have been noted since the Broads Authority was formed.

• Respondents recognised that achieving a balance between the perceptions and needs of all stakeholder groups was difficult to achieve.

• It was felt that the current level of development in the Broads was about right, but that there was also a need for a similar level of development to continue in the future.

• Respondents advocated the approval of controlled, small-scale development, which would both blend in and support the economy and residents of the area.

• Respondents felt that quality development should be allowed, which helped to improve the perception of the Broads as a destination, such as improved riverside facilities.

• Respondents were keen for the Broads Authority to support improvements to older properties, diversification or infill development around current centres, rather than the development of new areas.

• There were strong feelings against the development of projects that were large scale, out of character, over developed, ‘tacky’, or had undue environmental impact

• Respondents felt that the Broads Authority did tend to follow their ideals, however, respondents felt they should be more supportive of considerate new design, which could increase the vitality of the area.

• Flooding was seen as an inevitable problem in parts of the Broads. The Broads Authority are seen to have recognised this, but it is felt that more could be done.

• As a solution, the sea barrier, was well supported. Although the costs were high, sea surges were the main flooding concern, and respondents felt the Broads Authority should embrace a more long-term strategy.

• Respondents also felt that the Broads Authority should ensure the maintenance of floodplains, to aid natural flood alleviation.

• The most important factor mentioned was the need to maintain a working balance between the natural environment, the economy, living conditions, recreation and navigation on the Broads.

• The sustainability of the region was seen as a vital concern. There is a perceived need for the area to move forward to remain economically viable.

• New development should merge well with the existing environment, with visual impact and quality an important consideration.

• Respondents felt that the Broads Authority Planning Department needed to be more pro-active, particularly in their support of struggling local businesses, and the provision of riverside facilities.

• The overall attitude towards National Park status was one of cautious support, with some respondents feeling that the current legislation was perhaps more relevant to the area.

• There appears to be a need for increased clarification of what the designation actually means to the Broads.

• It was hoped that National Park status would encourage tourism, funding and the preservation of the special character of the Broads.

• There was concern that the designation would allow environmental concerns to take precedence at the expense of the traditional balance, as broad National Park legislation did not account for navigational activities, and was seen as restrictive of development.

• Some feared the possible loss of control to a non-local body.

• Those interviewed were generally happy with the current level of development in the Broads, but felt that the Broads Authority should work to ensure the quality and dynamic nature of the area were retained.

• The Broads Authority would need to consider a slight relaxation of its current stance to achieve equal priority for conservation, navigation and recreation. There is a need for the Broads to be maintained for the benefit of all users.

• Improvements are required to the moorings, riverside facilities, leisure interests, and accessibility of the area, to improve the quality of a visit to the Broads, and encourage people to restrict their activities to designated areas

• It was hoped that the Broads Authority would look to offer assistance to the traditional industries of the area, through realistic guidelines and access to relevant funding.

• Respondents saw little need for significant built development within the Broads. Although affordable housing was needed, it was felt this could be encouraged around the outskirts of the area.

• Future development should be small-scale and sited in areas in need of regeneration. There was much more support for reuse of sites, than for the new use of ‘green’ areas.

• The Broads Authority should have more influence on the policies of surrounding areas, which might affect the environment of the Broads.

• There was a perceived overall need for economic regeneration, but towards encouraging the tourism industry, rather than regeneration of the boatyards.

• Some natural shrinkage of the hire boat industry is needed, in order to encourage quality, rather than quantity. However, the decline is seen to be affecting the small family-run boatyards, and thus the traditional character of the area.

• The Broads Authority Planning Department needs to ensure the provision of a high quality surrounding infrastructure to encourage business and tourists into the area.

• It was hoped that the Broads Authority could be more dynamic in its approach to industry –recognising innovation, and offering clear advice and support to ensure that planning applications were realistic and practical.

• Respondents felt that increased public consultation would help the Broads Authority to remain well-versed in the problems experienced, and thus better placed to tackle the issues effectively.

The following conclusions have been drawn from the research findings section of the report.

Like the Broads Authority, local interest groups recognised the need for a balance between navigation, recreation and environment on the Broads. However, whilst respondents were aware that the ‘special character’ of the Broads mainly stemmed from the nature of the landscape, wetlands and natural environment, they were more firmly pragmatic in their call for a viable economy and living communities to support the needs of human inhabitants too. Their overall emphasis was very much towards a low level of small-scale development – of features that would support existing industry and community, rather than the creation of new. In particular, it was seen as vitally important that ‘improving quality’ should become one of the leading factors in development across the Broads.

In many respects, the Broads Authority Planning Department is seen to be striving to achieve this kind of high quality environment for the area. The Planners seem mostly to be following respondents’ ideals of ‘good’ development – projects that are in scale with, and blend into the existing environment. In many areas, the Planners are also seen to be supportive of development that restores or improves older properties, or diversification that helps to keep struggling businesses alive.

The decline of the hire fleet, and the perception of tourism as the industry of the future has done much to highlight this approach. Respondents were keen to stress the need to attract a low volume, high spend visitor to the area, who would be more inclined to appreciate, rather than destroy, the wetland environment. It was hoped that the designation of the area as a National Park would assist this type of sustainable tourism, but many felt that improved facilities, accessibility and water quality, encouraged by the Broads Authority Planning Department could also do much to help.

In essence, the outlook for the Broads appears to be one of survival and sustainability for small communities and a beautiful environment. It is encouraging that both local stakeholders and the Broads Authority are looking to the long-term preservation and enjoyment of the area, through a balance of local interests, rather than quick fix solutions. It is hoped that this will provide a firm basis to work from in the future.

The Broads Authority Planning Department is interested in hearing from any other local authorities with similar experiences. If you are interested in receiving further information about the Broads Authority Planning and Development Review, or in benchmarking information, then please contact:

Gillian Morgan

Director of Planning and Development

The Broads Authority

18 Colegate

Norwich

NR3 1BQ

Tel: (01603) 610734

Or c/o Kat Watters at the Market Research Group.