Items
No. |
Item |
48. |
APOLOGIES FOR ABSENCE
Minutes:
Apologies for absence were received from Cllr
C Stockton, there were no substitute Members in
attendance.
|
49. |
PUBLIC QUESTIONS
Minutes:
- 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.
- 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.
- The public speaker was granted a
supplementary question and asked for evidence cases which related
to the garden.
- 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.
- 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.
- 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.
- 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.
|
50. |
MINUTES PDF 229 KB
To approve as a correct record the Minutes of
a meeting of the Working Party held on Monday 14th
November 2022.
Minutes:
The Minutes of the Planning Policy & Built
Heritage Working Party held 14th November 2022 were
approved as a correct record.
|
51. |
ITEMS OF URGENT BUSINESS
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.
Minutes:
|
52. |
DECLARATIONS OF INTEREST PDF 721 KB
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.
Minutes:
|
53. |
UPDATE ON MATTERS FROM THE PREVIOUS MEETING (IF ANY)
Minutes:
- The Chairman noted that the
Infrastructure Delivery Plan (IDP) had been circulated to Members,
as requested at the last meeting, on 3rd December by
email.
- 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.
- 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.
- 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.
- The PPM agreed to bring the IDP to
the February 2023 working party meeting.
- 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.
|
54. |
ANY OTHER BUSINESS AT THE DISCRETION OF THE CHAIRMAN AND AS PREVIOUSLY DETERMINED UNDER ITEM 4 ABOVE
Minutes:
|
55. |
Local Plan and neighbourhood plans update ( verbal update and presentation)
Minutes:
- 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.
- 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.
- 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.
- 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.
|
56. |
Local Cycling and Walking Infrastructure Delivery Plan PDF 120 KB
Summary:
|
An update in relation to the
emerging Local Cycling and Walking Infrastructure Delivery
Plan, LCWIP
|
|
|
Recommendations:
|
For
Information only
|
Cabinet Member(s)
Cllr Andrew Brown
|
Ward(s) affected
All
|
All Members
|
All Wards
|
Contact Officer, telephone number and
email:
Iain Withington, Team Leader Planning Policy
– (01263) 516034
Iain.withington@north-norfolk.gov.uk
Minutes:
- 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.
- 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.
- 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.
- 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.
- 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
|
57. |
Local Development Scheme PDF 173 KB
Summary:
|
An
update to the Local Development Scheme (LDS) is necessary to
reflect the anticipated timeframe for the development of the
various planning documents including the work to submission and
adoption around North Norfolk District Council’s Local Plan.
The revision to the timetable for adopting the Local Plan is
necessary to align with the time taken to consider and respond to
the number of representations received to January 2022 pre
submission consultation. There is also a need to respond to the
additional evidence, to the nutrient neutrality advice and to
consider the implications of revised national policy and guidance.
This LDS must be published on the Council’s website and align
with the submission of the Plan.
|
|
|
Recommendations:
|
Members of
the Planning Policy & Built Heritage Working Party recommend to
Cabinet the revised timetable for the submission, examination and
adoption of the North Norfolk Local Plan and that the Local
Development Scheme be brought into effect as of the date of the
next meeting and published as required by section 15 of the
Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004 (as amended).
|
Cabinet Member(s)
Cllr Andrew Brown
|
Ward(s) affected
All
|
All Members
|
All Wards
|
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
Additional documents:
Minutes:
- 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.
- Cllr J Punchard asked if Officers
knew what the impact the County Deal would have on the Local
Plan.
- 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.
- Cllr J Toye noted s.26, p.23 of the
report, ‘significant risks’ and asked what constituted
as a significant risk?
- 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.
- 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.
- 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.
- 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.
- 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.
- The PPM commented that press
...
view the full minutes text for item 57.
|
58. |
Local Plan submission: Proposed Modifications (policies) PDF 255 KB
Summary:
|
This
report provides a summary of the requested modifications and
Council feedback in relation to soundness and legal issues raised
by respondents to the consultation held previously on the proposed
submission version of the Draft Local Plan
|
|
|
Recommendations:
|
Members of
the Planning Policy & Built Heritage Working Party recommend to
Cabinet that the Schedules of proposed modifications along with the
Proposed Submission version of the Local Plan be submitted for
independent examination.
To delegate
minor amendments in the finalisation of the submission version
& Schedules and associated documents to the Planning Policy
Manager and Policy Team Leader.
|
Cabinet Member(s)
Cllr Andrew Brown
|
Ward(s) affected
All
|
All Members
|
All Wards
|
Contact Officer, telephone number and
email:
Iain Withington, Team Leader Planning Policy
– (01263) 516034
Iain.withington@north-norfolk.gov.uk
Additional documents:
Minutes:
Local Plan submission: Proposed Modifications (policies)
- The
Chairman introduced this item, and reflected prior working party
meetings culminating in this report. He cautioned Members against
seeking to make substantial modifications at this stage and argued
that Members had been afforded opportunities prior.
- Cllr J Punchard sought clarity over the recommendation, and the
process the recommendation would take through the Councils
Democratic process.
- The
Chairman advised that the recommendation was for the Working Party
to recommend to Cabinet that the schedules of the proposed
modifications along with the proposed submission version of the
Local Plan be submitted for independent examination. This would
then be brought to Full Council as a recommendation from Cabinet,
pending its approval.
- The
PPM introduced the item and Officers recommendations. He confirmed
that schedule 4 was formed of modifications which Officers
considered merited consideration by the Planning Inspector, as they
improved the plan. The PPM advised that vast majority of proposed
modifications did not alter the substance of the plan, rather they
made clearer for the reader the intention of what the Council
wished to achieve, making it easier for the decision
maker.
He
advised that there were other changes consisting of typographical
errors, consistency and presentational issues, which were proposed
to be included for consideration by the Inspector en bloc, as these were uncontentious presentational
changes.
The
PPM noted that Members had been provided the schedule of
representations in full around 8 weeks prior, with the information
also being made available on the portal. Within the Agenda Papers,
Members had been provided with schedule 3 – containing a
summary of the key issues and Officer’s responses, schedule 4
– the proposed minor modifications, and a separate main
modification on NN.
With
Regards NN, the PPM advised that the Council must meet the habitat
regulations requirement as this was a legal requirement of the
Local Plan. In order to meet this requirement, the proposals
contained within the plan must mitigate their impact on the
receiving watercourses, in this instance the impact of phosphorus
and nitrogen pollution on the river Wensum and the Broads. The PPM
advised that a policy requirement had been added to the Local Plan
that no development take place unless it demonstrated NN, in
addition to some contextual background information explaining what
this issue was, and how it impacted on the development industry,
effectively serving as an embargo on specific development in those
catchment areas which failed to address NN. Had the Local Plan been
submitted 6 months prior, he considered that it would have been
challenging to get through examination as the Council did know what
mitigation may look like or what the financial impact may
be. Mitigation strategies were now much
clearer, and costs were anticipated to be around £5,000 per
dwelling as an average. That costs had been averaged in an update
of the viability assessment, ensuring that those costs did not
undermine the deliverability of other policy considerations. The
PPM considered this policy fix was sufficient, though acknowledged
the Planning ...
view the full minutes text for item 58.
|
|
59. |
EXCLUSION OF PRESS AND PUBLIC
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.”
Minutes:
|
60. |
TO CONSIDER ANY EXEMPT MATTERS ARISING FROM CONSIDERATION OF THE PUBLIC BUSINESS OF THE AGENDA
Minutes:
|
61. |
ANY OTHER URGENT EXEMPT BUSINESS AT THE DISCRETION OF THE CHAIRMAN AND AS PREVIOUSLY DETERMINED UNDER ITEM 4 ABOVE
Minutes:
|