Agenda and minutes

Apologies for absence were received from Cllrs A Brown (Chairman), Cllr G Mancini- Boyle, Cllr P Fisher, Cllr R Kershaw, Cllr C Stockton and Cllr J Toye. The Vice Chairman, Cllr P Grove-Jones served as Chairman for the meeting. Cllr L Withington was present as a substitute for Cllr P Fisher. 

There were no public questions.

To approve as a correct record the Minutes of a meeting of the Working Party held on Monday 15^th August 2022.

The minutes of the Planning Policy & Built Heritage Working Party meeting held Monday 15th August 2022 were approved as a correct record.

To determine any other items of business which the Chairman decides should be considered as a matter of urgency pursuant to Section 100B(4)(b) of the Local Government Act 1972.

None.

Members are asked at this stage to declare any interests that they may have in any of the following items on the agenda.  The Code of Conduct for Members requires that declarations include the nature of the interest and whether it is a disclosable pecuniary interest.  Members are requested to refer to the attached guidance and flowchart.

None.

1. The PPM advised that the Glaven Valley Rural Conservation Area consultation was being organised and would be advertised widely including within the Councils ‘Outlook’ magazine. He advised that a further update would be provided by the end of the year.

2. Cllr N Pearce stated that he had received numerous emails from concerned individuals regarding the exclusion of the Grade II listed Valley Farm and of the nearby chalk bed stream from the Rural Glaven Valley Conservation Area Parishioners were keen to see Sharrington protected and were willing to submit supporting evidence.

3. The PPM encouraged members of the public to take part in the consultation once launched, and affirmed that representations would inform decision making after the consultation concluded.

4. Cllr N Pearce commented that whilst the Glaven Valley it was not his ward, he had been contacted by the public as a member of the working party. He confirmed he had not met with anyone on this matter, nor did he have the intention to.

1. The PMO introduced the Annual Monitoring report and highlighted some of the information contained therein including mandatory indicators, house price changes, new build average price comparisons and population figures which were less than expected.

2. The PPM added to the introductory remarks and clarified the purpose of the monitoring report, which he considered was a useful tool to assess the success of the previous Local Plan and what could be learnt from it. The principle purpose of monitoring was to establish the effectiveness of policy and to spot trends, this he argued, underpinned good quality decision making. The PPM considered the Council to be in a positive position noting that the Authority had met its housing delivery aims over the prior 20 year period, and delivered an additional 1,500 homes to those previously prescribed. Further, the Council had successfully met its annual delivery target of 400-500 dwellings per annum consistently over the last 4-5 years. With regards to affordable housing the PPM noted that it was a struggle to find the right sites, and the stressed the importance of the rural exceptions programme which, whilst resource intensive, had delivered 100 affordable dwellings in some years. He affirmed that the Council were 5^th in a National League table for the delivery of rural expectations housing, commenting that this was a credit to the organisation and the flexibility built into the core strategy. He relayed the importance of regular monitoring which would inform the emerging Local Plan.

3. The Chairman expressed her surprise that population growth did not reach the 2011 census estimate, given the amount of housing development within the district and perception of the increased number of people relocating to the area.

4. The PPM advised that there were 5 key sources of information used to project population figures, including 3 sets of population and household projections from the O&S and 2 Census results. He noted that none of those reports produced the same figure and stressed the importance of examining what sits behind the figures. The PPM stated that there was no linear link between population growth and house building, in part because newly built dwellings formed a small amount of the total stock, and it was important not to disregard the other 95% of housing. The PPM noted subtle changes which were making household sizes smaller including the increase of divorce rates as well as second home ownership; which affected a significant proportion of some areas of the district. He noted that the 1.5% population growth was very low and that normally a 5% growth per annum was to be expected. The PPM advised that there was some scepticism over the statistics as to whether the population located in the broads, but within the NNDC boundary, had been recorded within North Norfolk and not a neighbouring district. If adjusted this would account for the gap between the projected population figure and the actual figure. He noted that census results were often modified and that the data contained therein became  ...  view the full minutes text for item 29.

None.

1. The PPM provided a verbal update on the draft Local Plan, the aim of which was to submit early in the New Year. He advised that the Regulation-19 consultation exercise had taken place earlier in the year and that the team were generating a condensed document detailing responses. Such documentation would be provided as soon as possible, with ample time for Members to fully consider ahead of its inclusion as an Agenda Item.  The PPM stated that complications had arisen as a consequence of Nutrient Neutrality (NN) guidance but that he had taken the view that it was in the best interest of the Authority to submit the Local Plan for examination within this administration. He contended that the Council were in a better position with NN than it had been 6 months prior and that there was greater understanding of the boundary and consequences. Importantly, cost impactions were better understood which would aid in the creation and implementation of mitigation strategies. The PPM stated that whilst in abeyance with NN the team were continuing to update the viability assessment across the district including the cost assessment, green infrastructure strategies, NN mitigation, elderly person accommodation and others which would have a significant impact on the cost of development. Additional costs for labour and materials had largely been offset by building value increases.

2. The Chairman considered the implication regarding settlement development distribution was reasonably fluid due to NN, she expressed some concern about housing delivery.

3. The PPM stated that he felt it was the right strategy to submit the draft Local Plan and affirmed that he felt the plan was sound. He acknowledged that if Members contended that changes were required following receipt of representations that growth in one areas was too much, but that the overall housing delivery figure was correct, modifications could be made to redistribute. Critically, issues would arise if significant changes were requested by Members, which would affect the timetable of delivery and would result in the need for further consultation.

4. Cllr J Punchard expressed his support to process with submitting the draft Local Plan within the current administration. He considered that serving Members were more knowledgeable of the process and that new Members would likely require extensive training to become more cognizant. Cllr J Punchard asked if the dates specified in the plan could be pushed back, rather than concluding in 2036.

5. The PPM stated that the moving of the plan period was theoretically possible but would need to be grounded within a received representation, which it had been. He noted that in pushing back the end date, the data used to inform decisions was less reliable.

6. Cllr N Dixon enquired when the examination period would take place, as he was mindful of election period in 2023.

7. The PPM stated that should the submission of the plan occur early 2023 that he would reasonably expect an Inspector to be appointed and for preliminary hearings to start by September 2023. He advised that most examinations of sound  ...  view the full minutes text for item 31.

1. The SPO introduced the Infrastructure Delivery Plan (IDP) outlined in the Agenda Pack, and noted that the full extensive document was still at the draft stage. The contents of the IDP were based on the Local Plan and would seek to benefit and promote the aspirations of the Local Plan. Critical, essential and desirable elements were set out on p.16 of the report. Other considerations included electric vehicle charging points, costs and the provision of flood lighting, GI/RAMS, amongst others. He reiterated that this was a live document at the draft stage.

2. Cllr P Heinrich was pleased that the North Walsham Link was included within the IDP, something he considered to be critical for the town and area. He enquired if the whole road was to be encompassed.

3. The SPO affirmed that the North Walsham Link was considered critical to the plan.

4. Cllr N Dixon expressed his disappointment that the full draft document had not been provided to Members prior to meeting nor was it available at the meeting by consequence of unforeseen technical issues. He affirmed that he was very interested to see the IDP, and considered its significant importance to the delivery of the Local Plan. He commented on his frustration that the Working Group had not had sight of its progress for some time, and it was especially critical Members review the document at this late stage of the process so close to submission.

5. The SPO advised that the was draft document was not at a stage in which Officers felt comfortable to share publicly, noting that discussions were taking place in a public meeting which was being livestreamed. 

6. Cllr N Dixon stated that it was essential that a tangible document be provided to Members so that they may determine where the IDP sits alongside the Local Plan. He reiterated that this was late in the process and that it was a key weakness in the past that the appropriate infrastructure had not been provided at the appropriate time. Cllr N Dixon reiterated his disappointment and stated that he would draw confidence if he were able to fully consider the document.

7. Cllr L Withington noted that a briefing had been held the week prior for the Coastal Transition Accelerator Programme (CTAP) regarding the issue of coastal erosion and asked if the IDP considered this matter.

8. The PPM advised that the IDP related to the infrastructure required to support the Local Plan and not broader concerns. He affirmed that he did not expect Members to agree to recommend the IDP at this stage, advising that this was an introductory item which was for information only. The PPM stated that there was a need for further debate on this matter at future meetings once Members were in possession of the full set of papers.

9. The Chairman requested that such information be provided before 2023, noting that the Local Plan had been going on for a number of years.

10. Cllr N Dixon asked if an early draft may be provided  ...  view the full minutes text for item 32.

             To pass the following resolution (if necessary):

“That under Section 100A(4) of the Local Government Act 1972 the press and public be excluded from the meeting for the following items of business on the grounds that they involve the likely disclosure of exempt information as defined in Part I of Schedule 12A (as amended) to the Act.”

None.

None.

None.