Agenda and minutes

Apologies for absence were received from Cllr C Stockton, there were no substitute Members in attendance. 

1. There was 1 public question from Ms J Armstrong with relation to Agenda Item 11 - Local Plan Submission Modifications (Policies) re Policy HC2, proposed modification reference LPS252.

2. The PPM responded to the public question and suggested that the proposed modification be left as an issue for the Planning Inspector to consider through the examination process, clarifying that the public representation had been made in writing and would be supplied to the Inspector. He stated that the Council had appraised the area and were satisfied that it met the qualifying criteria and contributed to openness, and further commented that Members were in a difficult position to make a judgement on this matter without seeing the land.

He cautioned Members against applying weight to the Examiners comments put forward in the report regarding the emerging Blakeney Neighbourhood Plan referenced by the Public Speaker, stating that the Examiner’s final decision had not yet been reached.

The PPM noted a couple of issues raised in the submission and commented that there was no requirement for open land areas to be publically accessible, this was therefore not a consideration, nor would Officers rely upon the fact that a site is located within a conservation area or AONB, as they were separate designations made for different considerations. The PPM stated that the determining factor for this matter was whether the parcel of land contributed towards the openness of that part of Blakeney.

3. The public speaker was granted a supplementary question and asked for evidence cases which related to the garden.

4. The PPM advised that Officers had appraised all existing open land areas of the core strategy, undertaken site visits and assessed whether the existing boundaries should be retained or not. He stated that the criteria for designation required subjective assessment.

The PPM noted the conflicting assessments from two different Inspectors, one with regard to a Planning Appeal and the other in relation to the emerging Blakeney Neighbourhood Plan, forming two opposing views as to whether the land should be designated. He concluded that the Planning Inspector for the Local Plan would be best placed to make a decision through the examination process.

5. Cllr J Toye agreed with the course of action set out by the PPM and questioned if Members were sufficiently qualified to make a judgement and stated that the Inspector for the Local Plan would be a specialist sitting above opinions and would consider all representations submitted through the examination process.

6. Cllr V Gay noted this would be a third Inspectors decision, and there was grounds to consider that a third decision would be decisive. She asked whether there had been other gardens in the District treated in the same manner as this parcel of land.

7. The PPM advised other land had been treated in the same manner, and reiterated the qualifying criteria was whether a piece of land contributes to openness of this part of the settlement in a positive meaningful way, irrespective of its use. He confirmed it was a subjective  ...  view the full minutes text for item 49.

To approve as a correct record the Minutes of a meeting of the Working Party held on Monday 14^th November 2022.

The Minutes of the Planning Policy & Built Heritage Working Party held 14^th November 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 Chairman noted that the Infrastructure Delivery Plan (IDP) had been circulated to Members, as requested at the last meeting, on 3^rd December by email.

2. Cllr N Dixon stated that he was pleased to have received the IDP and asked when the working party would be considering this document. He commented it would be a missed opportunity if the IDP was not considered in a timely manner.

3. The PPM clarified that the IDP was originally presented to the working party for information only, and it was not asked that Members adopt or endorse its contents in any way.

4. Cllr N Dixon considered that the IDP was fundamental and stressed that this document should be discussed and debated. He stated that the failure to recognise the importance and be able to deliver on infrastructure, would let down the new Local Plan and its deliverability, and concluded that the salient points of the IDP need to be presented to the working party at an appropriate stage.

5. The PPM agreed to bring the IDP to the February 2023 working party meeting.

6. Cllr N Pearce endorsed Cllr N Dixons comments, and thanked the PPM and his team for providing the IDP as requested. He considered that that the IDP was a fundamental piece of work and welcomed the PPM’s comments that the IDP would be brought to the working party in February.

None.

1. The PPM advised that a revised Local Plan timetable had been published and supplied an update on the process. He commented that the Reg-19 consultation had been undertaken earlier in the year, however since the consultation Nutrient Neutrality (N.N) guidance had been published which had further delayed the programme.

2. The PPM added that a library of live background evidence since the Regulation 18 consultation, including alternatives which were considered, all representations that were made, sustainability appraisal reports, all of the technical evidence such as viability assessments would be submitted as part of the examination process. Officers were in the process of preparing additional background papers for the Inspector which would explain in detail how the evidence had been used, and provide reasoned justification for the different policy approaches adopted.

3. He advised that Officers considered the plan to be sound, meriting submission, and welcomed Members questions at the next meeting about associated risks, noting that it was important that the working party address such issues. He further added that Members may wish for advice at the next meeting about what might appear in the next version of the NPPF, to be published around Christmas, which may bring in some radical changes to the plan making process and what could be included in Local Plans.

4. Nevertheless, the PPM remained optimistic about the Local Plan which he considered to be in a good place, though accepted and acknowledged that between now and examination that there were various factors outside the Council’s control, which were at play. 

Contact Officer, telephone number and email:

Iain Withington, Team Leader Planning Policy – (01263) 516034

Iain.withington@north-norfolk.gov.uk

1. The PPM introduced the local cycling and walking infrastructure delivery plan report, which was for information only, and advised that Norfolk County Council (NCC) would soon be launching a full public consultation on walking and cycling strategies which affected different areas of the District. He commented that there was the option, in the New Year, for NNDC to form a collective response rather than each individual ward Member responding.

2. Cllr J Punchard welcomed the consultation and reflected on a route located from Little Ryburgh, through Fakenham to Wells-next-the-sea which he considered to be poorly maintained, and noted the difficulties faced by Fakenham Town Council in getting Norfolk County Council to carry out repair works.

3. The PPM advised this was an early consultation on options, and there would be an opportunity to comment on things missing, and commented that he was uncertain of the timeline for when consultation would be launched, though it was expected within the first quarter of 2023. Officers had engaged in conversations with NCC, who were aware of growth strategies contained in the Local Plan, which would aid to inform their work.

4. Cllr J Toye expressed his support for the consultation, and in Members being able to make their own individual representations, noting that focus was concentrated on towns which in some respect already had infrastructure for people to use. He considered that 40% of North Norfolk residents lived in the countryside, which he felt had been neglected, in terms of the health and well-being and the benefits of being in the countryside, and because much of the Districts affordable housing was contained on exception sites, in rural localities, in need of better linkage. Cllr J Toye welcomed future discussion on this matter.

5. Cllr R Kershaw supported the comments made by Cllr J Toye, and considered it important that electric bikes be considered as it would aid to de-risk cycling, would help aid tourism, and access of older generations

Contact Officer, telephone number and email:

Iain Withington, Team Leader Planning Policy – (01263) 516034

Iain.withington@north-norfolk.gov.uk

Chris Brown, Project Management Support Officer – (01263) 516318

Chris.Brown@north-norfolk.gov.uk

1. The PPM introduced the Local Development Scheme and advised that it was a formal requirement when submitting the Local Plan for examination that the timetable be submitted as well as the stages followed when preparing the plan. He noted that there had been earlier timetables which had been stalled by the introduction of the White Paper and NN guidance, and advised that the main changes were alterations to submission dates (February/ March 2023) with the expectation that recommendations would be agreed by Council. The PPM stated that after submission there would be a year or more delay until adoption, pending the Local Plan Inspector’s decision. It would be for the new administration to adopt the Local Plan based on the timetable as set out.

2. Cllr J Punchard asked if Officers knew what the impact the County Deal would have on the Local Plan.

3. The PPM advised this was unknown, but that he had not seen anything which could indicate that the Local Plan process would be adversely impacted.

4. Cllr J Toye noted s.26, p.23 of the report, ‘significant risks’ and asked what constituted as a significant risk? 

5. The PPM advised the current Local Plan provided a sound basis for day to day decision-making, with the new Local Plan introducing some significant changes to deliver growth in the District. Site allocations contained in the last plan in 2011 were largely built out, with the exception of Fakenham, and the new plan also introduced a suite of environmental policies including bio-diversity net-gain, energy efficient construction and others. The PPM commented that the longer it took for the new plan to be submitted and adopted, the longer it would take to address housing need, deliver homes, introduce those new standards, and the greater the risk would be around the 5 year housing land supply. The longer the Council were without an up-to-date plan, the greater potential there would be for unplanned growth. Further, as government policy changes, the work which had been undertaken on the Local Plan begins to become outdated. The PPM stated there would be financial and reputational risks should the Council need to re-consult.

6. Cllr J Toye stated that, whilst he was happy with the scheme, it was important not to rush the Local Plan through to examination if it was not considered adequate.

7. The PPM advised if Members considered that more time and consideration were required into aspects of the Local Plan resulting in changes to main modifications, this would result in a delay to the timeline.

8. The Chairman commented that one significant risk was the impact of the Levelling Up and Regeneration Bill, and expressed his desire to see the Local Plan submitted before this bill was passed.

9. Cllr P Heinrich noted that press reports indicated that the rigid housing targets would disappear through the Levelling Up regeneration Bill, though acknowledged this was not guaranteed. He asked how this may impact on the 5 year housing land supply and on future housing targets.

10. The PPM commented that press  ...  view the full minutes text for item 57.

Contact Officer, telephone number and email:

Iain Withington, Team Leader Planning Policy – (01263) 516034

Iain.withington@north-norfolk.gov.uk

             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.