Agenda and minutes

Apologies for absence were received from Cllr A Brown (Chairman), Cllr P Fisher, Cllr M Hankins and Cllr A Varley. Cllr G Bull deputised as Chairman for the meeting.

None received.

To approve as a correct record the Minutes of a meeting of the Working Party held on Monday 12^th June 2023.

The minutes of the Planning Policy & Built Heritage Working Party meeting held Monday 12^th June 2023 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.

The Chairman declared a non-pecuniary interest in Agenda Item 7, he is a Local Member for North Walsham, but confirmed that he remained open minded on this matter.

1. The PPM introduced the Officer’s report and recommendation. Since the submission of the Local Plan the Inspector had been appointed and sought clarification on various issues. The PPM anticipated more questions would be raised in relation to other policy areas over the next few weeks leading into the examination hearings.

The PPM sought delegated authority to respond to the Planning Inspector in the first instance, and confirmed that he intended to take soundings from the Planning Portfolio holder when responding. In approving the recommendation, this would ensure that responses were made in a timely manner, and prevent the potential challenge that the Officer responding the Inspector did not have the proper authority to do so.

The PPM affirmed that the questions provided in Appendix A were supplied as demonstratives, and it was not asked that Members respond to the Inspectors questions supplied at this meeting.

2. Cllr J Toye considered the approach set out by the PPM to be sensible, noting that there was huge flux within planning presently including matters of Nutrient Neutrality which the Prime Minister had indicated may be revised. He stated he would like for the Working Party to be regularly updated as to the progress of the Local Plan, as appropriate. Cllr J Toye proposed acceptance of the Officer’s recommendation.

3. The PPM agreed that he would table a general standing item on the Local Plan for the Working Party.

4. Cllr P Heinrich asked, with respect of National Housing Target’s, what the current government position was.

5. The PPM advised that the Local Plan included 2 housing figures, a minimum figure based on the 2016 household forecast and a second higher figure which Officer’s argued the plan was capable of delivering.

The current requirement was that Councils should use the standard government methodology to calculate the minimum figure. NNDC did not use this methodology and so were at odds with the current government guidance. One of the emerging proposals in the Levelling Up and Regeneration Bill, presently undergoing consultation, was the removal of this requirement and wording added to the NPPF to include ‘unless exceptional circumstances apply’.

The PPM confirmed that the outcome of the consultation was not yet known, and it was uncertain what the future of housing targets would be. All Local Authorities were still working towards the central housing targets. The PPM remarked that by the time the hearings take place that the targets may have changed.

He commented that it was unsurprising that the Planning Inspector had raised questions about the housing figures. Officers would work to defend the lower figure, set by the Council, and justify reasons for departure from the standard methodology. The Inspector may be minded to consider alternate figures and confirm what that Councils’ position would be if the housing figure was modified.  The PPM advised in such instance, he would not respond to the Inspector without first speaking with the Portfolio Holder. 

6. Cllr J Punchard stated it seemed eminently sensible to move the plan back, as questioned by the  ...  view the full minutes text for item 14.

1. The PPM introduced the Officers report and recommendation, noting that a significant proportion of the homes proposed in the Local Plan would be achieved through the North Walsham West Development (NWWD). Should the Inspector consider the NWWD unviable, it was expected the whole Plan would fail. The PPM advised, to demonstrate to the Inspector that the NWWD was achievable, a development brief must be prepared, and this would require significant resourcing from the Local Authority and the Consortium.

The PPM confirmed Members were asked to consider the consultation arrangements and not the brief itself. He did not intend to present the full development brief to Members till after the public consultation, though would present a draft version at the next Working Party for endorsement of the public consultation only. He commented that the Consultation arrangements proposed was broadly similar to the Consultation for the Local Plan, with a timetable of events set out in the agenda pack.

2. Cllr P Heinrich stated he was not opposed the NWWD provided specific criteria were met. He expressed serious concern that the Working Party, nor Local Members had, to date, been provided with the proposed development brief, further North Walsham Members had not had any real input into the brief despite asking 4 years ago to be involved. He considered that the brief would therefore effectively be a creature of the Consortium, given the limited input from Members. With respect of the proposed timetable, Cllr P Heinrich detailed his reservations that the majority of the consultation would take place in August when the public may be on holiday and unable to fully engage with the process.  He considered it more appropriate that the consultation be pushed back to September and early October, else the Council be accused of arranging a nominal consultation only and not a detailed evaluation of the scheme by residents.

As Local Member, and without having seen the development brief, Cllr P Heinrich stressed the critical importance of the Cromer Road linking to the Industrial Estate which had been debated in full by the Working Party and at North Walsham Town Council. Additionally, as Portfolio Holder for Economic growth he noted the economic benefits which would be enabled through the link road, in an area of the district with limited employment land.  Cllr P Heinrich affirmed that the road would be at a considerable cost with estimates of 21 million, likely only go up, and commented that he would like to see that this matter be looked at totally independently.

Whilst not opposed to the consultation in principle, Cllr P Heinrich considered the timing was wrong, and affirmed that the Working Party and Local Members needed to have seen and understood the development brief before commencement of the consultation. 

3. Cllr V Holliday agreed that the proposed timeline was inappropriate, falling in August, and expressed her concern over the use of a flyer for a complex subject matter requiring high levels of detail. Further, she noted not all residents were online, and  ...  view the full minutes text for item 15.

             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.