Agenda and minutes

Apologies for absence were received from Cllr P Grove-Jones with Cllr L Withington present as a substitute.

None.

To approve as a correct record the Minutes of a meeting of the Working Party held on Monday 17^th October 2022.

1. The Chairman noted typographical and grammatical errors within the minutes of the Working Party held Monday 17^th October, but considered the contents of the minutes broadly sound. He suggested, rather than amending each at the meeting, that delegated authority be granted to the Chairman to make minor changes to spelling and grammar as required.

2. Cllr V Gay commented that when referring to the design guide she implied that it should be utilised, rather than it had always been utilised. The Chairman stated that he would ensure this be reflected in the minutes. 

3. It was agreed that the Chairman be given delegated authority to make minor grammatical and typographical amendments to the minutes of the Working Party held Monday 17^th October 2022. 

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.

The PPM advised that work on the Infrastructure Delivery Plan (IDP) was progressing that the IDP would be brought back to the Working Party as an item when he considered the document a completed piece of work.  The PPM advised this would occur within the next couple of months.

None.

Coastal Adaptation Supplementary Planning Document (SPD)

1. The SPO introduced the Officers report and Coastal Adaptation Supplementary Planning Document (SPD) and advised that the Council were representatives on a joint steering group established to produce the SPD. Other representatives included officers from East Suffolk Council, Great Yarmouth Borough Council, the Broads Authority and Coastal Partnership East. The SPO commented that the SPD built on the statement of common ground agreed in September 2018 with the overarching aim to provide a whole coast approach across the various Local Authorities.

The initial consultation was undertaken in Autumn 2020, with the steering group subsequently meeting on a regular basis to progress the document based on the initial consultation feedback. Other informal stakeholder discussions including that with the Environment Agency had further informed the contents and detail of the document. The SPO advised that progress on the SPD was time sensitive with the various authorities aiming to launch a public consultation in January 2023.

2. The CTAP Manager affirmed that Climate Change would result in an increased impact on coastal change with an acceleration of sea level rise and an increase of storminess and rainfall; key drivers of coastal erosion. He advised that the Shoreline Management Plan was going through a refresh and commented that whilst the Council would work to protect its coastline, it may not be economically or technically viable to protect all areas. He commented that the SPD formed a key part of the transition with a good policy setting to enable the Council to move forward working with individuals, communities and businesses as they adapt. He stressed the need to work flexibly considering this an evolving situation.

3. Cllr N Dixon recognised the need to work flexibly but expressed concern that this may conflict with fixed policies which formed an important framework for applicants. He asked the PPM how flexibility would be demonstrated over the period of the plan.

4. The PPM acknowledged that if a policy incorporated a great deal of flexibility it may negate the policy itself. He stressed the 2 fundamental principles of the SPD were to 1. To manage risk, and, 2. The application of the rollback policy. He noted previous discussions on how rollback could be incentivised, and commented that unlike the prior policy, the new policy offered more flexibility with regards to the floor space of replacement dwellings. Under the new policy if a replacement dwelling was larger, provided the development was not considered harmful, it may be approved. He affirmed that it was for the Development Committee to look at the proposal and to determine whether there were harmful impacts associated with the building.

The PPM noted historic debate about whether rollback should be retained within its host community, and stated that the emerging policy would be more restrictive ensuring rollback was not relocated elsewhere in the district. He stated that the undercurrent of the policy was to sustain places and communities and that the wrong impression would be created if relocation was permitted elsewhere. The PPM referenced the success of the rollback  ...  view the full minutes text for item 43.

1. The PPM updated Members on the current position of the Local Plan and what the next stages would be ahead of its submission. He noted that Members were in receipt of a schedule of modifications following the Regulation-19 (Reg-19) consultation responses. As part of the submission process Members had the opportunity to consider the responses made during the Reg-19 process, and were encouraged by the PPM to do so. Any modifications agreed by Members would form a separate schedule of modification document which would be submitted to the Planning Inspector alongside the Local Plan. It would be for the Inspector to decide if the proposed modifications were acceptable or not.

He confirmed that when brought to the Working Party at the next meeting, issue matters would be grouped into policy areas and subdivided into key issues. The PPM commented that the process of aggregating responses had taken Officer time as not all responses from the public had been received in the prescribed format.  It was envisioned that at the December Working Party Policy Area would be considered with Site Allocations considered at the January 2023 meeting. If supported by the Working Party the Local Plan would progress through to Cabinet and then to Full Council. Issues of a typographical nature would be added to the schedule by officers, it was not asked for Members to comment upon any grammatical or typographical errors.

The PPM cautioned Members that if any substantial changes were proposed that the Local Plan would not be submitted within the intended timeframe. 

2. Cllr V Gay asked if the Planning Inspector would be interested in the quality of Members’ discussion and if Minutes would be provided to the Inspector evidencing debate and deliberation.

3. The PPM advised the Planning Inspector would have access to Minutes, contents of the website and the Livestream of meetings via the Council eDemocracy YouTube page. Whilst the Inspector may be curious about Members’ debate, they would largely focus on the contents of the Local Plan itself, including consultation responses and the contents of the schedule of modifications. He stressed the importance to give justice to the Reg-19 responses at the next couple of meetings.

The PPM acknowledged one area of difficulty presented since the Reg-19 Consultation was the matter of Nutrient Neutrality (N.N), and noted that the Local Plan made no reference to N.N. He contended that viability assessments regularly changed and that a new NPPF was to be published in the New Year with the Levelling Up and Regeneration Bill to follow. The PPM was satisfied with the approach to submit the Local Plan ahead of the new administration.

4. The Chairman stated that he was keen for the Local Plan to be submitted before May 2023, and cautioned Members that there would likely be an Extra-Ordinary Full Council Meeting required in February to address Local Plan submission. He considered it important for the sake of openness and transparency that the Local Plan be considered by Full Council rather than by Cabinet alone.

5. Cllr  ...  view the full minutes text for item 44.

             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.

1. Cllr N Dixon expressed his disappointment that, at the prior meeting, the item of the Infrastructure Delivery Plan (IDP) had been poorly received, with Members not having been supplied full documentation prior to the meeting which was further exacerbated by issues with technology at the meeting. He stated that he would like sight of the IDP before its inclusion on any future Agenda, ideally within the next 10 working days regardless of whether the IDP was in draft form. He stressed the importance that Members have sight of the document with the appropriate time to properly consider its contents.

2. The PPM advised that whilst he had seen the draft IDP document, he would like to consider and be satisfied with its contents before releasing to Members. He advised that the IDP had been included on the Agenda of the prior meeting for information purposes only and commented that Members had not been asked to approve the document.

3. Cllr N Dixon stated that he was surprised that the IDP had been included as an item on the Agenda if it was not ready for review by Members. He considered the contents presented to Members to be insubstantial, which had failed to enable Members the opportunity to properly consider the contents of the IDP. Cllr N Dixon commented that he would be reticent to be presented with a large document for consideration and sign off without prior sight, and reiterated his disappointment that the IDP had not been presented to Members for the last meeting or subsequently.

4. The Chairman advised that there would be large agendas both in December and January to address the Local Plan, irrespective of whether the IDP was included as an Agenda Item.

5. Cllr N Dixon argued that this further justified Members being circulated the IDP before its inclusion as an Agenda Item and called on the PPM to supply the IDP within the next 10 working days.

6. The PPM agreed to supply the IDP within the next 10 working days. He cautioned Members that the document was a work in progress and would be in draft form.

None.