Agenda and minutes

Apologies were received from Cllr J Punchard and Cllr N Pearce, with Cllr W Fredericks attending as a substitute.

The Chairman reminded Members that an email had been circulated from the B1346 Awareness Group, and suggested that discussion of the matter be deferred to item 8 on site allocations.

To approve as a correct record the Minutes of a meeting of the Working Party held on 11^th October 2021.

Minutes of the meeting held on 11^th October 2021 were approved as a correct record and signed by the Chairman.

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 received.

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 declared.

None to report.

None.

The PPM introduced the report and informed Members that their decision on North Walsham may influence the following site allocations. He added that approval of all reports would result in publication of the Plan for Regulation 19 consultation, that would allow final comments on the soundness of the Plan. It was hoped that only minor modifications would be required at this stage, that could be approved by the Inspector without having to withdraw the Plan. On North Walsham, the PPM stated that the town would be critical to the success of the Plan, as it would host a significant portion of the growth required to meet the Council’s housing target, with limited alternate options available. He added that without a development brief, it was important that Members were comfortable with the content of the site allocation policy to progress the Plan without causing further delay. The PPM noted that a summary of consultation responses had been included for consideration, with only a small number of issues unresolved. These related to the necessity for a rail bridge at Bradfield Road, where various options were being considered, offsite highways considerations relating to the potential for increased traffic flow, and the potential for increased home working in the future. It was suggested that a mixed use site would promote self-containment within the town, which in addition to a traffic impact assessment, may help to alleviate future traffic concerns.

Questions and Discussion

       i.          Cllr V Gay stated that it was unfortunate that the development brief would not be ready for the Regulation 19 consultation, as this had been the original understanding. She noted that it was her understanding that approval of a brief would still be required before development could proceed, and asked for clarification on this process. The PPM replied that without a design brief in place no development could proceed and applications would be refused. Cllr V Gay referred to the Bradfield Road bridge and suggested that any inadequate infrastructure would not be used. She added that she also expected any future traffic impact assessments to take movement within the town into account, as well as service routes. The PPM confirmed that a comprehensive assessment of all traffic routes would have to be considered as part of any proposal. In response to a question on consultation comments, it was noted that many issues raised had already been addressed, though it would be helpful for the Policy to include the agreed vision statement. Cllr V Gay stated that she was pleased to see that green infrastructure considerations were now a key concern for a majority of stakeholders, which had been addressed within the Policy.

      ii.          Cllr J Toye raised concerns that other forms of transport besides cars were not being given adequate consideration within the Policy, and suggested that greater emphasis should be given to public transport options. The PPM stated whilst the transport impact assessment would outline the impact of development, there was also an expectation for detailed travel plans to be  ...  view the full minutes text for item 43.

Contact Officer, telephone number and email:

Mark Ashwell, Planning Policy Manager, 01263 516325, mark.ashwell@north-norfolk.gov.uk

The PPM introduced the report and informed Members that they were required to agree the final wording of the Policy for each site allocation within the Plan. He added that the Plan would contain two sets of policies, one relating to general development management policies and the second relating specifically to site allocations. It was noted that various additions had been made to the site allocation policies specific to each site, with some minor changes expected to the North Walsham allocations as discussed. The PPM noted that a letter had been received which raised concerns on the possibility of a ‘rat run’ being created, as a result of the Cromer site allocation. He added that the site had been specifically designed to avoid creating a potential ‘rat run’ on the Roughton Road, and the Highways Authority had also insisted that access not be provided at this point to avoid this.

Questions and Discussion

       i.          Cllr N Dixon raised concerns regarding long-term maintenance and asked whether alternate options would be considered besides Council adoption, such as by developers or residents. The PPM replied that this would apply to site specific policies and the Open Space and Habitat Policy, which would only require the approval of a maintenance scheme that would not necessarily mean adoption by the Council, allowing greater flexibility. Cllr N Dixon asked a follow-up question on when maintenance schemes would be agreed during the development process. The PPM replied that it could be post-approval as a planning condition, or as an obligation as part of a S106 agreement. Cllr N Dixon reiterated his concerns and suggested that these arrangements ought to be in place in advance on any planning consent. The PPM replied that he would review the Policy to ensure that obligations were met and confirm this at a subsequent meeting.

      ii.          Cllr P Heinrich referred to the North Walsham Norwich Road site, and stated that a correction was required on the number of businesses. He added that the six meter landscape buffer had also generated concerns and suggested that it should be included as part of the major landscaping, and given that an application was likely it should be clear what was required. Th PPM replied that he was aware of a potential development proposal for the site, which had been amended to address the concerns raised. He added that he would seek to ensure that the points raised were clear within the Policy. Cllr P Heinrich sought assurance that the minimum 15% affordable housing target was also made clear in the Policy.

     iii.          Cllr J Toye stated that he endorsed comments made on ensuring that proper maintenance plans were in place for green open spaces. He added that in regards to the Cromer site allocation, policies were in place to address the concerns raised, in addition to the Highway Authority’s own mitigation measures.

    iv.          Cllr P Fisher sought clarification on whether the Holkham Road Wells site was allocated sixty dwellings or fifty, as stated in the  ...  view the full minutes text for item 44.

The PPM introduced the report and informed Members that the entirety of the policies within the Plan had now been agreed and it was time to move to the consultation stage early in the new year, subject to completion of the viability and habitat assessments. He added that the consultation was expected to begin from 10^th January, and unlike previous rounds of consultation, any comments had to be made against a set of legal tests, which would help to determine the soundness of the Plan. It was noted that due to the committee cycle, the report had already been agreed by Cabinet, though it was important that Members were supportive of this decision.

Questions and Discussion

       i.          The Chairman noted that there was an active consultation on conservation area appraisals, and an overlap could be expected that may require consideration to avoid any responses being confused between the two.

      ii.          It was noted that the definitive start date of the Regulation 19 consultation would only be known following completion of the viability and habitat regulation assessments. On this basis, it was suggested that the recommendation be amended to allow some flexibility on the start date of the consultation. 

     iii.          Members asked to place on record their thanks for the work of officers in preparing the Plan for consultation. The PPM thanked Members for their assistance in the development of the Plan.

    iv.          The recommendations were proposed by Cllr J Toye and seconded by Cllr W Fredericks.

RESOLVED

1.     That the Working Party agree the Communications & Engagement Plan as the basis for conducting Regulation 19 public consultation on the Draft Local Plan and supporting documents with consultation commencing in January or as soon as possible thereafter.

2.     That the Working Party delegate any further minor changes to the Plan arising from the Habitat Regulation and Viability Assessments to the Planning Policy Manager in consultation with the Chair of the Working Party.

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.”